The seven stages of chemical technology from idea to industrialization (Issue 14/100) -- Quadrant decision-making

Thread Content

This post was last edited by xiouxingzhe on 2026-6-23 at 15:24. Seven stages of chemical technology from idea to industrialization (Issue 14/100). The birth of innovation: quadrant decision-making. Dear friends: Hello everyone! In the previous issue, we discussed the justification of business concepts: the size of the market, the intensity of competition, and whether the finances make sense. In this episode, we discuss the most crucial step in the second phase: combining the results of scientific and business analyses to arrive at a comprehensive judgment. There are only two possible outcomes for this decision: Go, and proceed further ； Or No-Go, that’s it. It sounds simple, but it’s hard to do. I’ve seen many projects where the problem isn’t the technology itself, nor is the market truly non-existent; rather, decisions are delayed when they need to be made, or decisions made are repeatedly revised. This state of affairs drains the team more often than a clear \"no\" does. I. Placing the two dimensions in a matrix: A scientific argument addresses whether something can be done, while a business argument determines whether it is worth doing. The intersection of the two dimensions creates four quadrants. Double-high quadrant – scientifically feasible and commercially valuable. This is the ideal scenario: the signal from Go is clear, so we can proceed decisively and enter the third phase of technological research and development. There’s no need to hesitate anymore; the direction is clear. What remains is to turn those possibilities into concrete results through action. The lower-left quadrant – it’s not viable scientifically, nor is it profitable commercially. This is also clear: No-Go, give it up outright and allocate resources to more promising areas. Such a surrender is not difficult, as the reasons are clear. What truly tests a person are the other two quadrants—one with a high value on one dimension and a low value on another. I call them the “single-high quadrant”. Many of the decision-making dilemmas I’ve faced in the past have arisen from these two quadrants. II. Scientifically feasible but with insufficient commercial value: Your desktop simulations and preliminary data indicate that this approach is scientifically viable. But business arguments tell you that the market size is small, either the product price is high, or the payback period is too long based on the costs. Faced with this situation, the most common reaction I’ve seen is: “With such great technology, someone will surely pay for it.” ”This is a rather dangerous way of thinking. Having good technology and the market being willing to pay for it are two different things. When I encountered similar situations in the past, I would usually ask three questions. Question 1: What are the reasons for the insufficient commercial value? Is it because the market itself is small, or is it due to the current low prices? If it is a trough in the price cycle, then investing in research and development during periods of low prices and starting production once prices rise again is actually a good counter-cyclical strategy. But if the market itself is small, then it’s necessary to consider whether there are ways to expand the areas of application – whether there are other areas outside the existing market where your product can be developed. Question 2: What is the main reason for the high costs? Is it the high cost of raw materials, or the high energy consumption for separation? If the cost of raw materials is high, is it possible to reduce the unit consumption by improving catalyst selectivity? If the energy consumption for separation is high, are there more energy-efficient separation methods? Break down the costs into individual unit operations to identify the specific reasons for high costs, and then determine whether there are targeted solutions. Question 3: Can this technology become a platform technology? Although this product doesn’t have sufficient commercial value at the moment, could the developed technical approach be applied to other more valuable products? The value of some technologies lies not in the first product they enable, but in everything else that can be seen beyond the door they open. After three further inquiries, if no viable way to break through can be found, my advice is to give up decisively. If it is found, set a clear verification period—such as three months—and re-evaluate its commercial value after the verification is complete. III. Significant commercial value but scientific obstacles: The market is there, demand is high and prices are attractive, but you face a key scientific obstacle—such as a catalyst with too short a lifespan, an unwanted side reaction that cannot be effectively suppressed, or separation difficulties that far exceed expectations. An error that is easy to make in such a situation is to be too optimistic about market prospects. Facing such a large market, people tend to underestimate the difficulty of overcoming technical challenges – \"With a market this big, technical problems can always be solved.\" However, some scientific problems cannot be solved simply by investing more resources; they may be constrained by the current level of understanding, or by the physical and chemical limitations of the materials themselves. The lesson I’ve learned from my own experience is that in such situations, the phrase “time-limited problem-solving” is very important. Transform scientific barriers into quantifiable metrics, and establish a clear time frame and verification plan. For example, \"the catalyst’s lifespan should be over 1,000 hours within six months; if that target isn’t achieved after six months, production stops.\" ”Why is time limit so important? Because the market won’t wait for you. Even if you spend three years wrestling with this issue, your competitors might already be shipping using a different approach. Furthermore, for a team, “putting it on hold temporarily” has a much lesser impact on morale than “continuing indefinitely.” If it cannot be taken within the specified time, then give up decisively. We cannot allow the expectation of a \"too good market\" to continue driving a technical direction that is actually impossible to overcome. IV. High potential but strategic misalignment: The technology is feasible, the market is favorable, and the payback period is short—but it simply does not align with the company’s current strategic direction. The existing technological expertise, talent pool, and market channels are not aligned with this direction; building capabilities from scratch requires considerable time and investment. This is the situation where it’s hardest to make a decision. Because the reason for giving up is not that it’s \"unworkable\", but that it’s \"not suitable for us\". My suggestion is to conduct a strategic fit assessment by identifying several key dimensions: technical expertise, talent pool, equipment versatility, market channels, and financial capacity. For each dimension, ask: What is the current state? What is the desired state? How big is the gap? And what are the cost and timeframe required to bridge that gap? After completing this assessment, if the costs and time required seem beyond what can be tolerated, it is possible to consider finding partners – shifting from developing solutions in-house to relying on technology transfer, or partnering with companies that have the necessary channels and resources by contributing technology as capital. If one can’t raise them themselves, finding a good family for them is also a solution. V. Decisions should be written down. This is something I began to value seriously only after having worked on projects for many years. Decisions should not be made verbally. Write it down. Including the decision date, participants, key criteria, points of contention, final conclusion, and follow-up actions. This record is kept in the project files. Why is this important? Because when a project encounters difficulties, people always ask, “Why was that decision made in the first place?” ”If the records from back then are still available, you can go back and check – what information and what judgments led us to make this decision. If the original records are not available, one can only rely on memory, and human memory changes as circumstances evolve. More importantly, if the decision turns out to be wrong, this record becomes your most valuable learning material. You can go back and see which judgment was wrong at the time—were the data used in the scientific reasoning inaccurate? Is the market forecast too optimistic? Has another key risk factor been overlooked? It was done right, and confidence was built. Making mistakes leads to the acquisition of wisdom. Both outcomes are valuable, provided you keep track of the process. VI. After making the decision, once the go-ahead is given, the next steps are to assemble a core team, develop a implementation plan, and move on to the next phase – technology research and development. After making the No-Go decision, note down the reasons for giving up as well. Keep the reason why this idea was abandoned in mind; if external conditions change in the future—such as an improving market or technological breakthroughs—you can bring it back up for reevaluation. Just because it’s a No-Go doesn’t mean it’s a permanent No-Go. But restarting also needs a basis; it can’t be just because “this direction still seems good.” Preview for the next issue: Issue 15 – Common pitfalls in the innovation incubation phase: Why most projects sow the seeds of future failure at this stage. With the second phase now covered, we have discussed all the key topics such as scientific justification, business case development, risk assessment, and quadrant-based decision-making. In the next issue, there’s no need to rush into the third stage; let’s take a step back first and discuss a few common pitfalls I’ve seen or experienced firsthand at this stage: being reluctant to give up when it’s time to do so, conducting arguments merely as a formality, focusing only on science without considering business aspects, or focusing only on business without considering scientific considerations. Reflecting on others’ mistakes can sometimes be more useful than learning from successful experiences. Table of Contents link: Seven-Stage Model of Chemical Technology from Idea to Industrialization (Issue 100) – Table of Contents (updated in real time)