# **Guidance for Environmental Management Science and Technology Roadmapping**

By

Brent Dixon

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)[^1]

# **Abstract**

Science and technology roadmapping is a planning process to help
identify technical capabilities needed for both project- and
program-level cleanup efforts, map them into technology alternatives,
and develop plans to ensure that the required scientific knowledge and
tools will be available when needed.

Application of science and technology roadmapping within Environmental
Management (EM) requires significant flexibility to accommodate the
variations between different projects and programs and the different
levels of roadmapping application. The author has provided direct
support to EM's Office of Science and Technology (OST) in the
development of draft guidance for science and technology roadmapping in
EM. This paper provides a summary of this guidance and a synopsis of
lessons learned from the application of roadmapping to a number of EM
projects and programs.

## INTRODUCTION

Science and technology roadmapping was initiated in private industry and
has gained widespread use by various government agencies. It has emerged
as a highly effective means of forecasting critical new technology
development requirements, and as a valuable planning tool for
decision-making. This process is now being applied to enhance planning
of Environmental Management (EM) programs. As part of that application,
a roadmapping guidance document has been drafted (1). This paper
discusses the history and philosophy behind the document, provides a
summary of the guidance, and discusses its application in current EM
roadmapping efforts and related lessons learned.

### **Background** {#background .unnumbered}

Application of science and technology roadmapping within EM requires
significant flexibility to accommodate the variations between different
projects and programs and the different levels of roadmapping
application. The EM roadmapping guide was developed to address these
needs.

The development of roadmapping guidance for EM was initiated after the
first EM roadmaps were completed and had demonstrated the value of
roadmapping for addressing high technical risks in key cleanup projects
and programs. These first roadmaps also indicated the need for and value
of applying roadmapping at multiple levels.

The initial EM roadmaps included two roadmaps addressing alternatives
for processing of high level waste salts at the Savannah River Site (2,
3). These roadmaps were developed as part of the actions to recover from
the high visibility failure of the original salt processing approach,
In-Tank Precipitation. After review, roadmaps for two additional
alternatives were developed and all four are now in implementation.

The other initial EM roadmap was for the Groundwater/Vadose Zone
integration project at the Hanford Site (4). This roadmap was broader in
scope, encompassing the needs of multiple individual site
characterization and remediation activities. This roadmap was developed
to address the high level of uncertainty associated with subsurface
cleanup decisions at Hanford.

Concurrent with the development of these initial roadmaps, EM was
completing the Environmental Management Research and Development Program
Plan (5). This report introduced multi-level roadmapping as a key
planning tool, while emphasizing end-user ownership and
multi-disciplinary participation as basic values for the planning
process.

The roadmapping guide was developed by expanding on the philosophy of
the EM R&D Program Plan. It addresses roadmapping at both the project
and program levels, based in part on the experiences of the Savannah
River and Hanford roadmaps. The next section of this paper provides a
summary of the draft guidance document, which is available for download
at <http://emi-web.inel.gov/roadmap/guide.pdf>

# **ROADMAPPING GUIDANCE SUMMARY**

### **What is Roadmapping?** {#what-is-roadmapping .unnumbered}

Roadmapping is a planning process to help identify technical
capabilities needed for both project- and program-level cleanup efforts,
map them into technology alternatives, and develop plans to ensure that
the required technologies will be available when needed.

Technology is defined in The American Heritage Dictionary as "the
application of science". Within EM, science and technology roadmapping
includes planning of both scientific research and engineering
development, with mission application as the end goal.

As a solution-driven, collaborative process for defining an R&D
strategy, roadmapping:

-   Identifies [what]{.underline} to do, [when]{.underline} to do it,
    and [why]{.underline} it needs to be done

-   Does not identify [who]{.underline} will do it, [where]{.underline}
    to do it, or [how]{.underline} to do it

## Key Principles of Roadmapping

EM science and technology roadmapping is:

> A. Solution-driven

-   Is owned by the cleanup project/program

-   Identifies activities and capabilities required to accomplish
    mission/project objectives

-   Identifies where activities or capabilities are insufficient or
    missing

-   Identifies solution(s) to insufficient or missing capabilities

> B. Fully integrated

-   Is a consensus building process---process is as important as the
    product

-   Facilitates participation of problem owners, solution provider(s),
    customers and stakeholders. This may include "internal" (safety,
    maintenance, etc.) and "external" groups (regulators, State/tribal
    oversight, citizen groups, NAS, etc).

> C. Comprehensive

-   Addresses life-cycle of program/project (near-, mid-, and long-term
    needs)

-   Considers full range of potential solutions (from basic science to
    applied research, technology development, demonstration, deployment,
    and technical assistance.)

### Credible and defensible decision process

-   Identifies the data used, the alternative solutions considered and
    the criteria employed to arrive at a decision

-   Documents the bases of the decision

-   The quality of the process determines the value of the product

## When Should Roadmapping be Used?

Roadmapping is a powerful high-end planning tool. In general, its use
should be restricted to those programs or projects where there is:

1)  A high potential for mission failure;

2)  Significant consequences if failure occurs;

3)  High dollar costs, high worker exposure, or high environmental
    impact; or

4)  Multiple, diverse efforts working on a common problem.

## Value of Roadmapping

At both the program and project levels, science and technology
roadmapping has several potential benefits, including:

-   Developing a consensus about a set of needs and the knowledge and
    technologies required to satisfy those needs.

-   Identifying key cleanup technology decision points and the
    scientific and technical information necessary to make informed
    decisions.

-   Providing a framework to help plan and coordinate science and
    technology developments within a project or an entire program area.

# **Science and Technology Roadmapping Process and Products**

# 

The roadmapping process includes workshops where participants with
responsibility or expertise in different disciplines increase the
collective knowledge base through open dialog and feedback. Attributes
of this proven methodology are:

-   The process will codify knowledge and technology needs,

-   Compare these needs to the current state of science and technology,

-   Identify gaps and shortfalls between the current and the needed
    state,

-   Develop defensible alternatives for meeting shortfalls, while also
    identifying ways to leverage R&D investments through coordinating
    research activities

-   Develop schedules and priorities to maximize benefit from scarce
    resources, and

-   Synthesize understanding into a conceptual path forward for R&D
    activities.

There are four phases to the roadmapping process: roadmap initiation,
technical needs assessment, technical response development, and roadmap
implementation. These phases and the products developed in each phase
are shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows a typical sequence of roadmapping
meetings, workshops, and other activities used to accomplish workscope
and products from Figure 1.

During the roadmap initiation phase, the need for a roadmap is
validated. Next, sponsorship is secured, the scope and boundary
conditions of the roadmap established, the roadmapping project and
product designed, and participants identified. Participants should
include a broad spectrum of people with interest in the project --
cleanup managers, process and operations experts, science and technology
providers, and regulators. Phase I includes the first two boxes of
Figure 2.

In the technical needs assessment phase, system flow sheets are
developed and specific system components identified. Areas are
identified in the system where there are significant technical
uncertainties. Existing technical capabilities are assessed to determine
gaps between what is needed and what exists. Specific research and
development (R&D) goals are identified to address each capability gap.
These goals are in the form of measurable functional capabilities
related to system performance. This phase is performed in the next two
boxes of Figure 2.

![](media/image1.png)During technical response development, technology
alternatives are identified and prioritized for each R&D goal. To bridge
each capability gap, a path forward is designed that includes initial
development of multiple alternatives, decision points to narrow down
advanced development to only one technology and delivery of the needed
capability on a schedule aligned with the supported cleanup project. All
the technology needs and responses are prioritized, an integrated
schedule developed, and a roadmap report prepared. This phase is started
in the fourth box of Figure 2, and completed in the fifth box.

In the final phase, roadmap implementation, the report is reviewed,
validated, and publicized and an implementation plan developed.
Implementation is monitored, progress reviewed, and plans updated as
needed.

![](media/image2.png){width="5.996527777777778in"
height="4.740972222222222in"}

Figure 2 - Example roadmapping activity sequence

###### ROADMAPPING GUIDANCE APPLICATION AND LESSONS LEARNED

Several new EM roadmaps have been initiated or completed either
concurrent with the roadmapping guidance development or subsequent to
the draft guidance publication. Each has followed or been influenced by
the guidance to some degree. Lessons learned from these roadmaps support
validation of and improvement on the guidance.

The roadmaps that have most closely followed the guidance are two
project-level roadmaps related to high level waste at the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)(6,7). Both roadmaps
focus on alternative designs for waste treatment and dispositioning. The
focus of these roadmaps is on reduction of technical uncertainties for
each alternative to support informed decision-making on which
alternative to develop. The roadmap reports include details on technical
uncertainties for each design, the research and development pathway to
address the priority uncertainties, and an integrated schedule with
resource estimates.

The roadmap coordinator for both these roadmaps found the guidance to be
generally useful, but only at a high level. The roadmaps were sponsored
by the cleanup organization responsible for dispositioning the subject
waste streams. Multi-disciplinary teams were used in the roadmap
development. The general order of identifying and prioritizing needs,
then developing and integrating responses was followed. However, they
found that for best utility, needs should be identified relative to each
specific alternative design, rather than to the general project
requirements suggested in the guidance. Needs prioritization was based
primarily on the potential impact, with design viability issues ranked
higher than design scaling, performance, and economic issues. Early
establishment of the key decision points was another important lesson
learned.

It is worth noting that many of the same personnel were involved in both
these roadmaps. While the scope was similar, the time to complete the
second roadmap was less than half that required for the first. The
coordinator attributed this primarily to the personnel being comfortable
with the process the second time around, and therefore more willing to
provide the dedicated effort required.

Another recent project-level roadmap (8) found that budget or schedule
limitations can impact the quality of the roadmapping process. The tank
characterization roadmap was both time and budget constrained. It
followed the guidance process, but was designed to get through only part
of Phase III. In addition, meetings with cleanup managers and technology
providers were limited to two one-day meetings. The early end to the
roadmap resulted in no detailed research and development activity
schedule. The reduced group interaction time limited buy-in and
ownership of the roadmap results by the participants. Both factors have
contributed to limited progress in implementing the roadmap
recommendations.

The gas generation roadmap (9), a small program-level roadmap, was also
budget constrained. This roadmap involved a team of participants from
across the country. To hold down travel costs, only one face-to-face
meeting of all participants was held, and most communication was via
e-mail and conference calls. The roadmap coordinator felt that by
limiting face-to-face meetings, the process actually took longer. As a
comparison, the three project-level roadmaps mentioned above have each
taken 2-6 months to complete, while this roadmap has taken 9 months and
a final report has yet to be issued.

Two larger program-level roadmaps have also been initiated (10,11). Both
involve the vadose zone, and are focused primarily on capability
improvements over a longer time period than the project-level roadmaps
above. A significant difference with the other roadmaps is that both
these roadmaps have been primarily sponsored by the science and
technology provider organizations instead of the cleanup/user
organizations. This is contrary to the guidance. In both cases, the
roadmap participants were initially primarily researchers, resulting in
some difficulties in establishing priorities, schedule drivers, and
linkage to cleanup programs. Again in both cases the breadth of
participation was subsequently expanded to include cleanup program
managers, primarily to address these deficiencies as they were
discovered.

Both of these program-level roadmaps are multi-year efforts and are
still in process. While the scope of these efforts is much broader than
the other roadmaps discussed and therefore expected to take longer, it
isn't clear how much the schedule could be reduced in similar subsequent
efforts based on lessons learned.

# **ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS**

Experience to date on application of the roadmapping guidance is
limited, but sufficient to make some general conclusions. For example,
it is evident there is the need for two types of roadmaps as described
in the guidance.

Project-level roadmaps work well when the objective is clearly
determined up front by the cleanup sponsor. They can be completed in a
relatively short time (\~3-4 months), but require a strong commitment of
resources to be developed effectively. This suggests the focus of the
roadmap must be solution of a key problem of the sponsor, preferably
with not just technical risk but also some schedule urgency. If the
problem isn't important enough, or the roadmap has some driver other
than the project's central cleanup responsibility, it may receive
insufficient resources (both budget and key personnel availability) to
be completely successful.

Program-level roadmapping experience is more limited, due in part to the
time to complete. This leaves more questions than conclusions. For
example, the guidance indicates a cleanup sponsor is needed up front.
However, sometimes a problem needs working which doesn't belong to any
specific existing cleanup organization, and therefore isn't squarely on
that group's critical path for mission completion. This seems to be the
nature of the problems being worked by most of the program-level
roadmaps to date. In the case of the Hanford roadmap, an organization
was formed at about the same time as the roadmap was prepared. The two
more recent vadose zone roadmaps are working to show support for
multiple environmental restoration projects, but are also addressing a
problem which has a longer time horizon than any of those projects
individually. More experience on program-level roadmaps is needed to
understand how to improve their efficiency and utility.

One particular difficulty for EM program-level roadmapping has been
setting of measurable goals for capability improvements. Program-level
roadmap goals tend to say "improve" without saying how much. This area
of the guidance was developed based on review of industry roadmaps. The
primary difference is the length of time between technology
"generations". Within private industry, new generations of products
occur every few years, and there is ample history available for
extrapolation in setting future generation performance standards. Within
EM, the market is limited and most projects use technologies only once
rather than repeatedly over a period of many years. This makes it much
more difficult to understand and define the performance requirements for
next generation tools that will replace current capabilities.

The guidance suggests the development of system flow sheets during the
Technical Needs Assessment phase. Flow sheets or "functional flow
diagrams" were employed on all of the project-level roadmaps to date,
but with the exception of the gas generation roadmap they have not been
used at the program level. It isn't clear if this indicates a lack of
applicability at the program level or just a lack of effort to use these
tools. While the program-level roadmaps are generally addressing
multiple, related problems rather than a single problem with multiple
possible solutions, they also seem to have difficulty in focusing the
multiple problems into an integrated theme. It isn't clear whether flow
sheets could help with this issue.

The guidance also suggests the involvement of regulators and even
stakeholders during roadmap development. In general, this hasn't
occurred, and regulator and stakeholder involvement has been limited to
information exchanges rather than direct participation. It isn't clear
what impact this will have on the ease of deployment of new technologies
resulting from roadmap implementation. Program-level roadmaps have been
more likely to provide the information exchanges.

A final conclusion is that roadmapping does seem to work best on
important, difficult problems, and possibly should be limited in its
application to only those problems. One key observation is the number of
independent reviews performed both during roadmap development and
implementation. Those roadmaps with significant reviews have tended to
exhibit better commitment of resources, better follow-through on
recommendations, and generally a tighter and higher quality effort.
Since high levels of independent review are usually limited to a few key
projects or programs, one new metric for deciding whether to roadmap is
to consider whether significant independent reviews are already
contemplated. If so, a roadmap may be a key planning tool. If not, a
roadmap may be overkill.

# **REFERENCES**

The references listed below are only those directly cited in the text. A
more complete list of roadmapping references with web page links is
contained in the draft EM roadmapping guide "Applying Science and
Technology Roadmapping in Environmental Management", available at
<http://emi-web.inel.gov/roadmap/guide.pdf>

1.  "Applying Science and Technology Roadmapping in Environmental
    Management", (draft), U. S. Department of Energy (2000).

2.  Savannah River Site High Level Waste Salt Disposition Systems
    Engineering Team Science & Technology Roadmap for Small Tank TPB
    Precipitation (Primary Selection), HLW-SDT-980164, Rev. 0,
    Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina (1998).

3.  Savannah River Site High Level Waste Salt Disposition Systems
    Engineering Team Science & Technology Roadmap for CST Non-elutable
    Ion Exchange (Backup Selection), HLW-SDT-980165, Rev. 0,
    Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina (1998).

4.  Groundwater/Vadose Zone Integration Project Science and Technology
    Summary Description, DOE/RL-98-48 Vol. III Rev. 0, U.S. Department
    of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington (1999).

5.  Environmental Management Research and Development Program Plan,
    Solution-Based Investments in Science and Technology, U.S.
    Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. (1998).

6.  Pre-Decisional Sodium Bearing Waste Technology Development Roadmap,
    INEEL/EXT-2000-01299, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
    Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID (2000).

7.  Draft Calcine Treatment Technology Development Roadmap,
    INEEL/EXT-2000-01620, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
    Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID (2000).

8.  Voluntary Consent Order Tank and Equipment Characterization
    Technology Roadmap, INEEL/EXT-2000-01218, Idaho National Engineering
    and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID (2000).

9.  Integrated Resolution of Hydrogen Gas Generation Programmatic
    Issues, U. S. Department of Energy (not yet published).

10. The DOE Complex-Wide Vadose Zone Science and Technology Roadmap,
    Characterization, Monitoring and Simulation of Subsurface
    Contaminant Fate and Transport (Preliminary draft for external
    review), U. S. Department of Energy (2000).

11. Science Plans to Address Deficiencies in Vadose Zone Understanding
    at the INEEL (Draft), INEEL/EXT-2000-01086, Idaho National
    Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID (2000).

.

[^1]: Work performed under DOE contract number DE-AC07-99ID13727