Thread Content
This post was last edited by xiouxingzhe on 2026-6-23 at 15:26. Seven stages of chemical technology from idea to industrialization (Issue 18/100). The end of the second stage: two cases, one set of principles. Dear friends: Hello everyone! In the previous issues, we discussed the main aspects of the innovation incubation phase: scientific validation, business case development, risk assessment, quadrant decision-making, and common pitfalls. Then, two cases were discussed in two separate sessions: the PPS project is an example of a project that passed the \"double high\" criteria, while the Shenhua Dowell Yulin project is an example that yielded lessons from its preliminary evaluation phase. This issue concludes the second phase. Compare the two cases side by side to see what commonalities can be identified. I. Comparison of the two cases: The PPS project and the Shenhua Dow project appear to be very different on the surface. One is new materials, and the other is coal chemical industry ； One is a facility with an investment scale of tens of thousands of tons, while the other is a super-large project with an investment scale of hundreds of billions ； A decision-making cycle is measured in months, while an argumentation process is measured in years. But from the perspective of the innovation incubation stage, they have some aspects that are worth comparing side by side. What did PPS do right? I think there are two key points. First, it has a pilot-scale foundation; it is not based on speculation from scratch, with the arguments backed by data. Second, it identified key uncertainties—amplification effects, yield stability, and solvent recovery—and, following the Go decision, made these uncertainties the main targets for research and development in the third phase. In other words, it doesn’t pretend that all problems have been solved; instead, it honestly lists the unresolved issues and moves on to the next stage with them. What is the problem with the Shenhua Dow project? Based on available information, there are also two key points. First, the validation cycle is too long; the market environment is changing, yet the assumptions underlying the business validation are not updated in a timely manner. Second, investment volumes are expanding and environmental constraints are tightening, yet projects continue to move forward by inertia at a time when their economic viability should be re-evaluated. It’s not that the project shouldn’t be carried out; rather, at several key points, there is a lack of the need to pause and reassess the situation. When comparing the two cases together, there is an interesting contrast: PPS’ reasoning is not perfect—it also involves uncertainties; there was no 100% certainty as to whether the yield could be maintained or whether solvent recovery would be possible. But its approach is honest: if it’s not certain, it states that fact and moves on to the next stage with questions to address it. A great deal of work was done in the feasibility study for the Shenhua Dow project – the plan was changed nine times over ten years, and substantial resources were invested in the preliminary stages – but when the market conditions changed fundamentally, the feasibility study was not adjusted in a timely manner. There is a point that can be easily confused here: it’s not the case that the more arguments there are, the better. The argument is too long; the market environment may have changed already ； The reasoning is too superficial; the risks are not adequately exposed. The key is not the length of the argument, but its quality and dynamism—whether the assumptions are clear, the data is solid, and whether the argument is updated as the external environment changes. II. Five Principles in the Innovation Incubation Phase: After writing so many articles, I would like to try to distill out the most crucial principles of this second phase. Rule 1: Block out the unviable options at the door of the laboratory at the lowest possible cost. This is the most fundamental positioning of the second phase. Before spending money excessively, use a pen and some paper to rule out the clearly unviable options. A half-day of desktop simulation can save half a year of trial and error in the laboratory. This is not conservatism; it’s economics. Article 2: It takes more courage to be willing to give up than to be willing to invest. I repeat this sentence at this stage over and over again, because it is the one I find most difficult to achieve. It is natural for people to have feelings toward their creativity and to be attached to the time and effort they have invested. But resources are always limited. Rather than spreading resources across three “plausible” directions, it is better to concentrate them on one “highly feasible” direction. Giving up is not failure; it is strategic focus. Article 3: Conduct independent reasoning; do not act as a ‘passer’. This point was discussed in the analysis of the Shenhua Dow project, and it was also mentioned in the reflections on the phenylacetic acid project. Regardless of the source of the technology—whether it was developed internally, provided by a technology supplier, or obtained from literature—an independent desktop analysis must be conducted at the stage of innovation incubation. Calculate ΔG by yourself, carry out the material balance calculations on your own, and re-examine each key assumption. It’s not a lack of trust in the source; rather, independent verification is itself a fundamental requirement of the scientific method. Article 4: Business justification requires dynamic calibration, rather than being valid indefinitely. The market environment is changing, the competitive landscape is changing, policies are changing, and raw material prices are changing. The business case developed during the innovation incubation phase is based on current information and judgments. When there are significant changes in the external environment, the original conclusions drawn need to be re-evaluated. An argument is not a document that is completed once and then locked away in a drawer; it is a living document that needs to be taken out regularly for refinement. Article 5: Decision records must be written down. Go or No-Go, what information is used to make the decision, what are the controversies and reservations, who is involved, what is the date – write it all down. When the project encounters difficulties in the future, this record can help you return to the original decision-making point and examine where the mistakes were made in those initial judgments. Do it right to build confidence ； Make mistakes and gain wisdom. Both outcomes are valuable, provided you keep track of the process. III. The relationship between the second phase and subsequent phases: After the innovation incubation phase is completed, if the decision is to proceed, the system enters the third phase – technology development. What does the second phase provide for the third phase? Two things. One is the direction. It’s not a vague direction like “let’s develop a new technology,” but rather a clear target such as “we need to solve these specific technical problems.” During the innovation incubation phase of the PPS project, several key uncertainties were identified: amplification effects, yield stability, and solvent recovery; the experimental design for the third phase was formulated around these factors. The other is confidence. The rationale from the innovation incubation phase shows that this direction was not chosen arbitrarily, but has been tested both scientifically and commercially. When technical development encounters difficulties—and difficulties are bound to arise—you can look back at the documentation to confirm that the general direction is correct, and that temporary obstacles have simply arisen in the process of solving specific problems. The impact of this confidence on team morale cannot be underestimated. IV. A reminder: Many methods and principles for the innovation incubation phase have been discussed, but one thing must be said honestly: knowing them does not mean one can succeed in implementing them. There are many pitfalls; only by falling into one oneself can one truly understand how deep it is. I didn’t manage to do all of the things I wrote about earlier from the very beginning either. It was only after making mistakes and paying the price that I gradually understood it. So I’m writing this not to say that “by reading it you can avoid all pitfalls” – that’s impossible. Rather, it means that if you encounter a similar situation, at least there’s a voice in your head that can remind you – “Someone said I should be careful in this place.” ” Preview for the next issue: Issue 19: The beginning of Phase 3 – Moving from “chemistry” to “chemical engineering”. Phase 2 has come to an end. Starting from the next issue, we officially enter the third phase — technology research and development. This stage is the most appealing part of the seven-stage model: it’s the first time you truly see whether this idea will work or not. But before entering the laboratory, there is a cognitive hurdle that must be overcome first: for the same chemical reaction equation, the physical processes at play are completely different when it takes place in a glass bottle compared to in a reactor. How can this transition be made from “chemistry” to “chemical engineering”? To be continued in the next issue. Table of Contents link: Seven-Stage Model of Chemical Technology from Idea to Industrialization (Issue 100) – Table of Contents (updated in real time)