When a new production plant is built or an existing one upgraded, it cannot betaken for granted that adequate process technology is available off the supplier’s shelves. Rather, itmay require a strong commitment on the process firm’s part to find competitive production solutions in collaboration with one ormore equipment suppliers. The development of such new or improved process technology may be prompted by the process company's need for process development, or product development, or both. The purpose of this article is to provide theoretical insight and practical guidance on how both process firms and equipment manufacturers can address the challenges posed by joint collaboration for innovation in new process technology/equipment. Starting with a discussion of motives and the question of why collaborative development of new or improved process technology/equipment should take place at all, a conceptual model of the full life cycle of process technology/equipment is introduced together with a classification matrix containing the dimensions of complexity of process technology and newness of process technology. The framework provides a conceptual platform for further research into this area, but can also be deployed by industry professionals in their efforts to improve inter-company collaboration.

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide theoretical insight and practical guidance on how both process firms and equipment manufacturers can address the challenges posed by collaboration during the operational stage of the process technology/equipment life cycle. Design/methodology/approach - Motives and driving forces for entering collaborative projects far from always converge, and while some projects require deep and long-lasting relationships, others call for pure transactions and arms-length relationships. The questions of why, when and how collaboration should take place and be organised and managed are addressed and discussed in the light of the literature on technology diffusion and technology transfer, and supplemented by ideas fromindustry professionals. Findings - A tentative list of potential pros and cons has been compiled to serve as an embryo for further creation of a more complete set of expected outcomes with a view to developing a firm benchmarking instrument for establishing new collaborative relationships. Subsequently, a conceptual model of the full life-cycle of process technology/equipment is developed to create a platform for determining collaboration intensity and success factors during different phases. Finally, a matrix with the dimensions "type of capability" and "expected performance improvements" is introduced as a tool for selection of different forms of collaboration. Research limitations/implications - The main limitation is that so far this is only a theoretical framework, but as such it will serve as a new platform and a guide for further empirical studies of this important yet under-researched area. Originality/value - This area of technology and innovation management research for the process industries has not been addressed before in depth. The new framework can already be deployed by industry professionals in their efforts to improve inter-company collaboration and technology transfer, but also as a means of avoiding unintended technology diffusion.

When a new production plant is built or an existing one upgraded, it cannot be taken for granted that adequate process technology is available off the supplier's shelves. Rather, it may require a strong commitment on the process firm's part to find competitive production solutions in collaboration with one or more equipment suppliers. The development of such new or improved process technology may be prompted by the process company's need for process development, or product development, or both. The purpose of this article is to provide theoretical insight and practical guidance on how both process firms and equipment manufacturers could address the challenges posed by joint collaboration for innovation in new process technology/equipment. Starting with discussion of motives and the question of why collaborative development of new or improved process technology/equipment should take place at all, a conceptual model of the full life-cycle of process technology/equipment is introduced together with a classification matrix containing the dimensions of complexity of process technology and newness of process technology. The conceptual framework provides a platform for further research into this area but can also be deployed by industry professionals in their efforts to improve inter-company collaboration.

After a thorough literature review of the present Quality Function Deployment (QFD) methodology and its use in the process industry, it has been concluded that present QFD systems do not address the specific needs of this type of industry. A new QFD system has consequently been developed based on those research findings. The new system has been specially adapted to Process Industry applications and production systems that are often characterised by long chains of customers and suppliers and sometimes by lack of direct contact with end users. The use of the new system is illustrated by a simplified industrial case, and its further application in Process Industry is discussed

In a research project on the development of process technology in process industry, success factors have been developed and ranked by R&D managers in various sectors of the European process industry. The results are presented in two parts, of which this is Part 1. As an introduction to this part, a new classification system for success factors in R&D is developed and the final discussion in Part 2 presents a model for company implementation. The empirical results stress the importance of good technology transfer in the process development process. The results can also be seen as a shopping list and a starting point for in-company development of success factors and performance indicators for process development.

In a research project on the development of process technology in process industry, success factors have been developed and ranked by R&D managers in various sectors of European process industry. The results are presented in two parts, of which this is Part 2 of the study. A new classification system for success factors in R&D was developed as an introduction in Part 1, and the discussion in this paper presents a model for company implementation. The empirical research results give an emerging picture of a development area, a development process and a type of development behaviour that differ markedly from product development and the product development process. The results can also be seen as a shopping list and a starting point for in-company development of success factors and performance indicators for process development.

Quality function deployment (QFD) is a development methodology that has been in industrial use for about 30 years. For industry professionals, it is thus important to know what type of outcomes they can expect from using QFD, but also how to behave according to best practice. In this paper, the research results from nine studies of the industrial usability of the QFD methodology have been reviewed, analysed and synthesised on a meta-level. In this meta-analysis, a new framework for the assessment of methodologies has been developed, and the QFD methodology as such has also been used as a research instrument. The results show that the previously often-cited most important outcome, 'shorter time-to-market', has no scientific support at all. The good news is that the outcomes 'better products' and 'improved information dissemination and retrieval' have strong support.

A research project on the development of process technology in process industry led to recognition of the importance of a better classification of different types of process development. A new classification system and matrix have consequently been developed, using the dimensions ‘newness to the world’ and ‘newness to the company’. The distribution of annual company expenditures for process development in the matrix and the estimated usability of the matrix have been tested as part of a larger survey conducted among R&D managers in European process industry. In view of the favourable response from industry, it is argued that the matrix could facilitate company portfolio balancing of process development projects, and that it is also necessary to distinguish between different types of process development in academic research.

In Process Industry, process development traditionally takes a large part of the company's total development efforts, but has nevertheless not received much attention in academic studies. As a part of a larger research project concerning process development in Process Industry, the allocation of company resources to R&D, and to process development in particular, has been investigated in an exploratory survey to R&D managers in European Process Industry (Mining & Mineral Industry, Food & Beverage Industry, Pulp & Paper Industry, Chemical Industry, Basic Metal Industry, and Other Process Industry). The results show that of the total resources for R&D, 40% was allocated to process development, and over 60% of the companies expected this figure to increase in the future. This figure not only shows the future importance of process development, but also indicates that the importance of product development in this group of companies is at present still rated higher than process development. The results from the study do not fit the most widely used theoretical models, and it is concluded that there is a need for better models with more explanatory power. The new concepts of product and process development intensity are introduced. The product and process development intensities can be looked upon as aggregated measures of individual development efforts by a company, and it is thus argued that they are of overall company strategic importance