Proposed Extensions to the Methodology of Technology Scouting

Diego Lasso-Lazo

, Francisco

Alvarez-Ar

evalo

, Javier Pati

no-Chuni

Javier Valdiviezo-Ortiz

, Jorge Bermeo-Conto

and Juan Pablo Carvallo

CEDIA, Gonzalo Cordero 2-122 y J. Falardo, Cuenca, Ecuador

Keywords:

Technology Scouting, Strategic Intelligence, Knowledge Discovery.

Abstract:

An extended framework for the Technology scouting process is developed. The developed framework pro-

poses the use of a series of screening mechanisms and veriﬁcation instruments that extend the process al-

ready described in UNE 166006:2018. The extended framework was implemented in two cases of study for

Technology scouting services provided by CEDIA to innovation stakeholders. The results demonstrated the

effectiveness of using the extended framework, reducing stagnation points and the risk of information bias,

two main issues often reported in the techonology scouting process.

1 INTRODUCTION

The ﬂow of information for strategic intelligence can-

not be an ad-hoc exercise. Instead, it must be the re-

sult of applying a systematic approach covering the

information requirements of the institution (Savioz,

2006). In light of the rapid advancements in tech-

nology across all human endeavors, efﬁcient informa-

tion management is vital for the wellbeing of organi-

zations.

These information retrieval systems must adapt to

technology changes, identify business threats, and un-

cover innovation opportunities. The process of col-

lecting data on technology trends plays a pivotal role

in strategic decision-making and in acquiring essen-

tial information for the enterprise (Phaal et al., 2004).

Technology scouting (TS), also referred to as tech-

nology monitoring or technology landscaping, is the

process of collecting and analyzing key information

for the early identiﬁcation of technological and com-

mercial trends. The aim is to preemptively identifying

potential threats and opportunities for the organiza-

tion (Stute et al., 2021).

When conducting TS, the biggest challenges are

the lack of a well-deﬁned scope of the expected infor-

https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4629-933X

https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1526-8307

https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8347-709X

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5763-3648

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5455-0716

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6678-4774

mation from TS, and failing to identify the right data

sources to scout (Simpson, 2018). Such challenges

can result in ’stagnation points,’ where the ﬂow of

beneﬁcial information ceases. This not only inﬂates

operational time but also leads to team fatigue and

may ultimately cause the failure to meet the organi-

zation’s informational requirements.

Another signiﬁcant hurdle that organizations face

in TS is the presence of information bias. This occurs

when the ﬁltration of relevant data is not guided by

an objective, systematic process, especially when it

comes to disruptive information, critical for decision-

making. This often relates to a TS process that lacks

ﬁltering mechanisms for reducing the volume of in-

formation while at the same time ensuring the ob-

jectiveness of the data obtained. When information

bias arises, the conclusions and recommendations ex-

tracted from TS lose their value. This can have

far-reaching implications, compromising the quality

of strategic decisions that rely on such information

(ul Hasnain Kazmi, 2016) (Comai, 2011).

Numerous methodologies for TS exist, each with

its own merits and drawbacks. For the technol-

ogy scouting projects conducted at CEDIA, we have

opted for the UNE 166006:2018 methodology (UNE,

2018). This is the third iteration of the Spanish stan-

dard for an R&D&I (Research and Development and

Innovation) management monitoring and intelligence

system. While this standard provides a systematic

approach for TS, it falls short in several key areas.

Speciﬁcally, it lacks robust ﬁltering mechanisms and

veriﬁcation tools to ensure the objectivity and rele-

256

Lasso-Lazo, D., Álvarez-Arévalo, F., Patiño-Chuni, J., Valdiviezo-Ortiz, J., Bermeo-Conto, J. and Carvallo, J.

Proposed Extensions to the Methodology of Technology Scouting.

DOI: 10.5220/0012211200003598

In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2023) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 256-264

ISBN: 978-989-758-671-2; ISSN: 2184-3228

vance of the data collected. Additionally, although the

standard acknowledges the value of insights gleaned

from the TS process, it lacks a discrete step for gen-

erating prospective information. These shortcomings

can result in stagnation points or information bias. To

address these limitations, we propose an ”Extended

Framework for Technology Scouting.”

The remainder of this paper is organized as fol-

lows: Section 2 offers a literature review of exist-

ing approaches to technology scouting methodolo-

gies. Section 3 details our proposed modiﬁcations to

the UNE standard. Finally, Section 4 presents the re-

sults of applying this extended framework in two case

studies, both examples of services provided by CE-

DIA.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The merit of technology scouting is vested in its ulti-

mate yield: information. This information transforms

into actionable insights illuminating future paths, cru-

cial for strategic intelligence. Levine et al., through

a series of methodically controlled experiments, con-

ﬁrmed that strategic intelligence offers a signiﬁcant

competitive advantage in dynamic market environ-

ments, effectively differentiating successful entities

from their unsuccessful counterparts (Levine et al.,

2017). These ﬁndings mirror real-world observations

where institutions that invest resources in future pre-

paredness consistently outperform those with less em-

phasis on foresight (Rohrbeck and Kum, 2018). Sim-

ilarly, empirical studies have revealed a clear advan-

tage for companies with high absorptive capacity for

emerging technologies. Such companies often reap

substantial beneﬁts from their TS efforts (Wang and

Quan, 2021).

The beneﬁts form TS extend beyond manufactur-

ing enterprises. Service-providing entities also reap

substantial beneﬁts from TS, given that they navigate

an even more dynamic innovation landscape (Mina

et al., 2014). Thus, it is of paramount importance for

enterprises situated within technologically advanced

and highly competitive sectors to allocate resources

towards TS. Nonetheless, TS methodologies require

continual reﬁnement to address the challenges of the

modern technology landscape effectively.

Various approaches for TS have been proposed

and successfully implemented. Rohrbeck examined

the practice of technology scouting in three compa-

nies of the ICT industry: BT, Telefonica, and DT.

The study explored each of the technology scout-

ing methodologies adopted by the companies and

highlighted the importance of networks for informa-

tion discovery. Furthermore, Rohrbeck’s research ex-

amined the interplay between stakeholders, technol-

ogy scouts, and experts, offering valuable insights

into how technology scouting functions within large

multinational corporations (Rohrbeck, 2010).

Arman and Foden contributed with the develop-

ment of a methodology aimed at assessing related

technology developments. This approach involves

capturing and identifying technology-based threats

and opportunities and was tested in a UK aerospace

manufacturing ﬁrm. It allowed the development of a

process to identify technology base knowledge, op-

portunities and risks. It can also be used to report

ﬁndings, visualize results, and to conduct technology

threat and opportunity analyses (Arman and Foden,

2010).

Similarly, Ashton et al. designed a structured ap-

proach for international technology monitoring. Their

methodology outlines various types of information

needs, knowledge sources, and monitoring methods.

Implemented in the International Research Monitor-

ing Program of the US Department of Energy, this ap-

proach offered valuable insights for making research

and development (R&D) decisions related to energy

conservation. This, in turn, brought several beneﬁts

to technology organizations in the US (Ashton et al.,

1991).

Having assessed the different standards available,

CEDIA has worked with the standard by the Span-

ish Normalization Association (UNE), which offers

a standardized framework for TS, known as UNE

166006:2018. While this standard provides a robust

and universally applicable methodology for TS, it

could beneﬁt from reﬁnements to better address chal-

lenges like stagnation points and information bias.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Methodology and Information

Needs

We propose modiﬁcations to complement the existing

UNE 166006:2018 framework in the context of Tech-

nology Scouting and Strategic Intelligence. These

modiﬁcations introduce targeted tools designed to ad-

dress identiﬁed gaps and challenges, while still adher-

ing to a systematic and objective approach.

The current UNE 166006:2018 framework out-

lines ﬁve key steps for Technology Scouting: Iden-

tiﬁcation, Planning, Information Search and Treat-

ment, Added Value of Information, and Distribution

and Storage. Our work particularly attends to ”In-

formation Search and Treatment” and ”Added Value

Proposed Extensions to the Methodology of Technology Scouting

257

of Information,” the third and fourth steps in this se-

quence. While the framework offers general guide-

lines for data search, analysis, and extraction, it leaves

room for more speciﬁc processes that can improve the

extraction and veriﬁcation of strategically useful in-

sights.

To ﬁll this gap, we suggest a set of ﬁltering mech-

anisms and veriﬁcation criteria grounded in speciﬁc

questions. These aim to bolster the quality and reli-

ability of the gathered information. For this aspect,

we draw upon the work of Ashton et al., who outline

various types of information commonly sought in the

Technology Scouting process (Ashton et al., 1991).

A categorization of this information can be found in

Table 1.

Table 1: Major types of information needs.

Type of Information Topics

Scientiﬁc research and

technology develop-

ment activities

Information on basic and ap-

plied research activities, R&D

objectives, technical results,

technology developments

Technology application

characteristics

Descriptions of features, com-

ponents, costs, or performance

data for technology-based

products, processes, or appli-

cations

Science and technology

institutional character-

istics

Information on key personnel,

organizations, and budgets for

R&D activities

Economic or market

performance and trends

Information on levels and

trends for industrial produc-

tion, imports, exports, and

other indicators

Business or industry

news

Reports on new events or

actions involving technology-

based ﬁrms and technology

products, including key per-

sonnel and business decisions

Government science

and technology policy

characteristics or trends

Descriptions of government

S&T funding, regulations,

standards, incentives, and

other policy actions

3.2 Screening Mechanisms

The vast amount of currently available data creates a

challenge for identifying and managing valuable in-

formation. A screening mechanism or ﬁltering sys-

tem, serves as a tool with which it is possible to sepa-

rate relevant from non-relevant data for the organiza-

tion. By implementing such screening mechanisms,

we can systematically ﬁlter the collected data based

on predeﬁned criteria. Thus, irrelevant or unreliable

data can be removed, ensuring only high-quality and

trustworthy information as the ﬁnal product. (Timimi

and Chaudiron, 2008).

In our proposal, these screening mechanisms are

divided into 4 different information monitoring di-

mensions. Each dimension will yield valuable infor-

mation from a speciﬁc perspective. The description of

each dimension and their ﬁltering questions are pre-

sented next.

3.2.1 Academic Monitoring

It refers to the systematic review of the latest and most

relevant research on the ﬁeld of interest. Scientiﬁc re-

search is an indispensable source of information and

acts as a driver of innovation in the business world.

(Randieri, 2023). This stage sets the ground for the

process of technology scouting, specifying informa-

tion needs by answering the following questions:

• What major problems is the scientiﬁc community

studying?

• What possible solutions have and have not been

researched?

• What are the most relevant researchers and insti-

tutions working on the ﬁled of interest?

3.2.2 Technology Monitoring

Technology monitoring involves a systematic and

consistent review of technologies that have already

been protected or licensed. A key resource for this

process is patent data, currently the most up-to-date

and comprehensive source for tracking technology

development (EPO, 2007). In this context, the screen-

ing ﬁlter distinguishes between theoretical possibili-

ties and technologies that have been sufﬁciently de-

veloped to warrant intellectual property protection.

The goal of this technology monitoring screening pro-

cess is to address the following questions:

• What related technologies have already been pro-

tected?

• What technologies have been transferred to the

market?

• What are the most relevant developers and owners

of technology?

3.2.3 Commercial Monitoring

Constant monitoring of the market is necessary for

the successful application of any technology to its

commercial environment. This monitoring does not

merely focus on the internal performance of a com-

pany, but also keeps a systematic record of the ex-

ternal business environment, specially the evolution

of innovation and intellectual property objects related

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

258

to the institution (Kosenko et al., 2017) (Best, 2010).

Once a technology trend has been identiﬁed, it is

essential to understand its market and potential for

growth. This ﬁlter looks to answer the following

questions:

• What are the markets for the technologies identi-

ﬁed?

• What is the evolution of these markets?

3.2.4 Competitive Monitoring

During the process of technology scouting, it is com-

mon to ﬁnd developments and research that are still

out of the scope of local markets. Hence, the compet-

itive monitoring serves as a ﬁlter to obtain relevant in-

formation regarding external actors who are perceived

as current or potential competitors (Aguirre, 2020).

This monitoring can also be extended for a self analy-

sis focusing on the competitiveness of the institution.

This ﬁlter looks to answer the following questions:

• Are any of my competitors currently implement-

ing these technologies? Is this a potential threats?

• Does my institution have the necessary technical,

economic and human capital resources to imple-

ment these new technologies?

Based on our experience, Commercial Monitor-

ing and Competitive Monitoring can often be com-

bined into a single screening mechanism that moni-

tors the commercial aspect of the researched technol-

ogy. However, if the nature of the technology under

investigation requires separate analysis of its commer-

cial and competitive aspects, then both types of mon-

itoring would be performed. For the sake of covering

all possible scenarios, we have speciﬁed these as dis-

tinct mechanisms in this paper.

3.3 Veriﬁcation Instruments

Veriﬁcation instruments involve cross-referencing the

information previously ﬁltered against multiple cri-

teria based on relevance, feasibility, and economic

value. By subjecting the information to such scrutiny,

we can minimize the risk of relying on inaccurate or

misleading information, thus strengthening the over-

all reliability of our ﬁndings. By using veriﬁcation in-

struments we expect to reduce the likelihood of stag-

nation points, which usually appear once relevant in-

formation has been ﬁltered but still needs to be evalu-

ate in terms of feasibility and applicability in the own

technology ecosystem.

3.3.1 Success Cases

Certain technological development and implementa-

tion opportunities may have been seized by competi-

tors or analogous institutions. As such, performing

a success case study helps to conﬁrm their relevance

and potential, thereby diminishing uncertainty and

enhancing the likelihood of successful development.

This phase acts as a validation technique for the fea-

sibility of new technologies, and either present an op-

portunity of successful implementation or raise the

alert for a potential threat. It seeks to address the fol-

lowing questions:

• Has anyone developed or implemented these tech-

nologies?

• In doing so, were they successful and to what ex-

tend?

3.3.2 Environment Monitoring

The adoption of new technologies hinges not only on

their commercial potential or a company’s resources,

but is also signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced by the ecosystem’s

requirements, incentives, and constraints. As such,

it is important to conduct an in-depth review of the

political, economic, and social contexts in which the

technologies identiﬁed during the technology scout-

ing process exist. This veriﬁcation instrument could

validate the feasibility of developing new technolo-

gies, services, or products within the existing legal

framework. This stage aims to address the following

questions:

• Does the ecosystem in which these technologies

could be implemented have any speciﬁc require-

ments or offer any particular incentives?

• Are there any restrictions, legal or otherwise, that

could prevent the adoption of new technologies?

3.4 Prospective

The ﬁnal phase of the extended framework generates

a forward-looking outlook for the institution. In in-

volves identifying opportunities and threats related

to the implementation of the technology. This stage

is guided by earlier screening and veriﬁcation steps.

These insights provide initial guidance for the institu-

tion’s technological path.

Table 2 contrasts our extended technology scout-

ing framework with the existing UNE 166006:2018

standard, while Figure 1 provides a detailed illustra-

tion of our approach, particularly focusing on steps 3

and 4 of the standard. It’s crucial to note that the ef-

fectiveness of this framework largely depends on the

Proposed Extensions to the Methodology of Technology Scouting

259

Table 2: Diferences between UNE 166006:2018 and Ex-

tended methodology.

UNE 166006:2018 Extended methodology

1. Identiﬁcation 1. Identiﬁcation

2. Planning 2. Planning

3. Search and Treat-

ment

3. Search and Treat-

ment

3.1 Search 3.1 Search

3.1.1 Filtering Mecha-

nisms

3.1.2 Veriﬁcation In-

struments

3.2 Information Treat-

ment

3.2 Information Treat-

ment

3.3 Information Anal-

ysis

3.3 Information Analy-

sis

4. Added Value of In-

formation

4. Added Value of In-

formation

4.1 Prospective

4.1 Generation of the

ﬁnal product

4.2 Generation of the

ﬁnal product

5. Storage and Distri-

bution

5. Storage and Distri-

bution

available information. Therefore, certain screening

methods and veriﬁcation tools may vary in applica-

bility based on the data at hand and the institution’s

speciﬁc needs. Nonetheless, our framework serves

as a versatile guide, offering various combinations of

screening and veriﬁcation options that can be tailored

to ﬁt different needs and budgets. This adaptability

makes it a valuable addition to existing standards and

a useful resource for organizations of all types.

4 RESULTS

Next, we showcase two instances where the extended

framework proposed in this paper was put into prac-

tice. We highlight the beneﬁts reaped and the chal-

lenges encountered during the implementation of this

extended framework. These two cases of study belong

to the services provided by CEDIA, a pioneer in the

provision of TS services in Ecuador. (CEDIA, 2023).

4.1 Technology Scouting as a Service for

Higher Education Institutions

CEDIA has been providing TS reports to Ecuador’s

academic and industrial sectors since November

2019. As of the time of writing this paper, twenty

reports have been published, along with several oth-

ers created on demand. These reports are designed

for a broad audience, including researchers, corporate

Academic Monitoring:

What has and has

not been researched?

Technology Monitoring:

What has been protected?

What has been licensed?

Comercial Monitoring:

Is there a market?

Is the market growing?

Competitive Monitoring:

Am I capable of doing it?

What about my competitors?

Success cases:

Who else developed it?

Was it successful?

Environment Monitoring:

What is the legal context?

Is there any restriction?

Prospective: What threats and

oppportunities can be derived?

Figure 1: Extended framework: Screening mechanisms and

Veriﬁcation instruments.

executives, entrepreneurs, and public ofﬁcers. Aimed

at providing valuable insights for each type of audi-

ence described in Table 3, the primary goal of these

reports is to offer a foundation for each audience to

progress in their projects based on relevant trends and

information.

From 2022 onward, the institution adopted the

methodology proposed in UNE: 166006:2018 for the

TS process. However, a signiﬁcant challenge was en-

countered in the generation of report number 18, pub-

lished in August 2022, and titled ”Innovando el Sec-

tor de los Superalimentos” (Innovations in the ﬁeld of

Superfoods) (Lasso and Burbano, 2022)

. Moreover,

the problem of stagnation points was highly reported

in the creation of the report, given the broad spectrum

of the topics covered, that are aimed to a highly di-

verse audience. Additionally, there was no instrument

that addressed the risk of information bias. Those is-

sues were encountered given that the standard does

not provide speciﬁc actions for carrying out the steps

3.1 ”Search” and for the step 4: ”Added Value of In-

For access to the report, please write to the authors of

this paper

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

260

formation”.

Table 3: Information needs for each type of target audience

of the technology scouting reports.

Stakeholder Information needs

Academia (Author-

ities, Researchers,

students)

Research opportunities

Technology devel-

opers and owners

Technology trends and

opportunities

Corporate and in-

dustrial executives

Commercial and invest-

ment opportunities

All stakeholders Restriction and incentives

All stakeholders Innovation and en-

trepreneurship opportuni-

ties

Academic Monitoring:

Evolution of papers

Technology Monitoring:

Evolution and dis-

tribution of patents

Commercial and Com-

petitive Monitoring:

Market and CAGR

Competitive Monitoring:

Normative

Incentives

Porspective:

Opportunities

Figure 2: Extended framework implemented for Technol-

ogy scouting reports as a service by CEDIA.

Consequently, we implemented the extended

framework proposed in this paper to adress these

shortcomings. We parted form the same information

baseline, hence, the original scope of the report de-

veloped by (Lasso and Burbano, 2022) is maintained.

The scope of the original report focused on gathering

and analysing information of 10 superfoods: quinoa,

goji berry, dragon fruit, yaca/jackfruit, chia seed, acai

berry, turmeric, maca, amaranth and taro root.

Table 3 deﬁnes the information needs that the TS

had to cover. Therefore the original information needs

are used as the benchmark for the exercise using the

extended framework proposed in this paper.

The extended framework proposed in this paper

adapts its screening mechanisms and veriﬁcation in-

struments to the speciﬁc needs of the institution. For

the report discussed here, we follow the workﬂow out-

lined in Figure 1, except for omitting the ”Competi-

tive Monitoring” screening mechanism and the ”Case

of Success” veriﬁcation instrument. These steps are

skipped because the report targets a broad audience

rather than a speciﬁc institution. As such, it doesn’t

focus on gathering competitive intelligence or success

case studies. Figure 2 elaborates on the screening

mechanisms and veriﬁcation instruments used in this

context, based on our extended framework.

Table 4 describes the results from the Technology

scouting process of the original report and of the ex-

tended framework.

The original report categorizes the collected infor-

mation into three major trends: Foodstuff, Pharma-

ceutical Products, and Farming Technologies. While

it adequately addresses the information needs for ”Re-

search Opportunities” and ”Technology Trends and

Opportunities,” it falls short in other areas. For in-

stance, it provides only general information for ”Re-

strictions and Incentives” and doesn’t address ”Com-

mercial and Investment Needs” at all. Moreover,

the original report’s conclusions are based on broad

trends and lack speciﬁc details for each superfood

studied.

In contrast, the extended framework allows for a

more granular analysis, focusing on individual types

of superfoods. This approach meets all the informa-

tion needs and will soon be published as an update to

the original report. For comparison, Table 4 includes

only the most pertinent data gathered through the ex-

tended framework. Notably, it identiﬁes Quinoa and

Acai as superfoods with the highest potential across

research, technological development, and commercial

sectors.

Therefore, the extended framework represents a

signiﬁcant improvement in the service provided.

4.2 Technology Scouting as a Service for

Innovation

Another example of the extended methodology’s ap-

plication in TS is an on-demand project for a medium-

sized ﬁnancial institution in Ecuador. The project

aimed to provide the institution with clear, succinct

recommendations for implementing new technologies

in the ﬁnancial sector. They were interested in mod-

ernizing their services and attract new clients. The

client speciﬁcally requested a report on the ﬁntech

sector’s technology landscape, along with targeted

recommendations applicable to their context. For the

main process, we followed the primary methodol-

Proposed Extensions to the Methodology of Technology Scouting

261

Table 4: Stakeholders’ Information Needs for Technology Scouting Report ”Innovation in Superfoods”.

Information

Needs

UNE 166006:2018 Standard Extended framework

Research Op-

portunities

Most relevant research trend: Pharma-

ceutical products

Most Researched Superfoods: Turmeric, Ama-

ranth and Quinoa / Superfoods with Greatest Re-

search Growth: Quinoa, Goji and Dragonfruit

Technology

Trends and

Opportunities

Highest amount of patents: Trends of

foodstuff and pharmaceutical products

Highest amount of patents: Turmeric, Quinoa and

Goji / Fastest Growth in Patent Publication: Jaca,

Quinoa and Acai

Commercial

and In-

vestment

Opportunities

No speciﬁc information on the trends

previously identiﬁed.

Biggest superfood markets: Quinoa, Dragonfruit

and Acai / Superfood Markets with Faster Growth:

Amaranth, Quinoa and Acai

Restrictions

and Incen-

tives

No speciﬁc information on the trends

previously identiﬁed. Ecuadorian Clus-

ter Superfood was developed to pro-

mote the development of the market.

In Ecuador, every crop must comply with the Or-

ganic Law on Agrobiodiversity, Seeds and Pro-

motion of Agriculture (LOASFAS) and the Na-

tional Agency for Regulation, Control and Health

Surveillance (ARCSA). The Ecuadorian Cluster

for Superfoods provides funding for the devel-

opment of crops, with $76,000.00 spent in 2022

to promote the development of superfood compa-

nies.

Innovation

and En-

trepreneur-

ship Opportu-

nities

”No speciﬁc opportunities or threats

extracted. Pharmaceutical products is

the trend with the highest research and

technology development. Foodstuff

possesses a fair amount of research. No

speciﬁc conclusions on farming prod-

ucts.”

Results have been reﬁned with ﬁltering mecha-

nisms and validated through veriﬁcation methods.

Among superfoods, Quinoa and Acai hold the

most prominence in academia, intellectual prop-

erty, and the market.

ogy outlined in UNE 166006:2018. The information

needs for this project are detailed in Table 5.

Table 5: Information needs for TS in the Financial Sector.

Information

Needs

Topic

Commercial

Technologies

Which technologies have

been adopted or developed

that could be emulated to

enhance our services and

expand our client base?

Timeline What is the expected imple-

mentation timeline for each

of these new technologies?

Subsequently, we implemented the proposed

modiﬁcations for the steps 3 and 4 of UNE

166006:2018. As previously noted, one notable ad-

vantage of our proposed methodology is its adaptabil-

ity to adapt through different combinations of screen-

ing mechanisms and veriﬁcation instruments. As this

was an on-demand service, we align the scope and

details of the exercise to the client’s budget and ex-

pectations. This meant applying only the screening

mechanisms and veriﬁcation methods that would gen-

erate information within the scope requested by the

client. The speciﬁc screening mechanisms and veriﬁ-

cation methods used for this exercise are illustrated in

Figure 3.

The proposed extended framework allowed us to:

• Identify potential technologies: The ﬁrst screen-

ing mechanism allowed us to identify technol-

ogy trends and relevant patents that are being pro-

tected and launched into the market.

• Identify markets with the highest potential: The

second screening mechanism serves as a ﬁlter for

technologies already established in markets with

high value and growth rate.

• Validate the feasibility of their implementation:

Through the study of success cases, we can

conﬁrm the succes of implementing these new

technologies. While this may represent a non-

disruptive approach, it is suitable for institutions

that prefer a more conservative stance towards

venture investments.

• Extraction of objective recommendations for

technology implementation along with a timeline:

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

262

Technology Monitoring:

Evolution and distribution of patents

Patent Value

Relevant patents and technologies

Commercial Monitoring:

Market value and CAGR

Relevant companies

Success Cases:

Technologies successfully launched

Prospective:

Technologies with poten-

tial of implementation

Innovation horizons

Figure 3: Extended framework applied to the case of TS for

a ﬁnnacial institution.

Once these ﬁlters and the veriﬁcation instrument

are established, we extract insights that address

the institution’s information needs. The use of

screening mechanisms and veriﬁcation indeed re-

duce the level of information bias.

Through the utilization of the extended frame-

work, we were able to cover the needs of the ﬁnancial

entity that requested the technology scouting report

in a strictly objective manner, providing speciﬁc rec-

ommendations on which new technologies might be

beneﬁcial for them to implement. These recommen-

dations were supported by an organized ﬁltering pro-

cess, which allows us to ensure the relevance of these

technologies and their markets. In many cases, their

effectiveness and success has already been proven.

5 CONCLUSIONS

We have presented an extended framework for the

process of TS described in UNE 166006:2018. The

extended framework aimed to address the issues of

stagnation points and information bias previously

identiﬁed during TS process. The extended frame-

work was applied in two cases of study.

For the ﬁrst case, the extended framework was

applied a TS case done by CEDIA in order to vali-

date its advantages. Report 18, called ”Innovando en

el sector de los superalimento” (Lasso and Burbano,

2022),was regenerated with the extended framework,

which allowed to establish a clear pathway for col-

lecting and ﬁltering relevant information for the in-

novation ecosystem. The screening mechanisms al-

lowed to collect speciﬁc information on each type of

superfood, thus meeting each information need pre-

viously deﬁned. Additionally the use of veriﬁcation

instruments identiﬁed speciﬁc technological insights,

enabling the extraction of research, development, and

innovation opportunities.

In the second case study, the extended framework

was applied to a technology scouting service provided

to a ﬁnancial institution in Ecuador. Once again, the

reduction of stagnation points was conﬁrmed, and the

extended framework effectively addressed the insti-

tution’s information needs, enhancing the trustwor-

thiness of the extracted recommendations. The ﬁnal

conclusions possess a high level of objectiveness.

Based on these two cases of study, the imple-

mentation of this extended framework has shown sig-

niﬁcant potential for enhancing the efﬁciency of the

TS process in institutions that have already adopted

the UNE 166006:2018 standard. Additionally, the

screening mechanisms and veriﬁcation instruments

could theoretically be tailored to any ﬁeld of knowl-

edge and replicated in various types of organizations.

The two main advantages of this extended framework

are the reduction or elimination of stagnation points

and the objective value derived from the information

extracted, which is reﬂected in the prospective pro-

cess’s recommendations and conclusions. These ad-

vantages can enhance the effectiveness of the technol-

ogy scouting process within institutions of the innova-

tion ecosystem.

Further research is necessary to validate the efﬁ-

cacy of the extended framework in different environ-

ments and among various types of innovation actors.

While theoretically, the extensions proposed in this

paper could be applied to any ﬁeld of knowledge, fur-

ther research is needed to test the adaptability of the

extended framework. More validation exercises are

expected to be conducted in the future, however as the

work developed by (Rottensteiner and Ploder, 2022)

afﬁrms, the beneﬁts of extensions to methodologies

described in international standards has been proven.

It is imperative to state that the availability of infor-

mation is still the critical factor when conducting TS.

Limited information, particularly in disruptive tech-

nologies, can impede the clear combination of screen-

ing mechanisms and veriﬁcation instruments. More-

over, for broad topics or ill-deﬁned information needs,

the combination of screening mechanisms may in-

advertently exclude important information that could

impact the TS outcomes. Thus, as recommended in

UNE 166006:2018, a well-deﬁned identiﬁcation pro-

cess and planning for technology scouting remain im-

perative. The use of this extended framework outside

Proposed Extensions to the Methodology of Technology Scouting

263

the scope of UNE 166006:2018, as well as the use

of screening mechanism and veriﬁcation instruments

separately, is beyond the scope of this paper.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was developed thanks to the support of

CEDIA through the funding of the project ”Confor-

macion de una Unidad de VTIC y Red de Expertos”

(Formation of a Technology Scouting and Intelligence

Unit and Network of Experts).

REFERENCES

Aguirre, M. F. (2020). Vigilancia tecnol

ogica: qu

e es, tipos

y ventajas para la empresa.

Arman, H. and Foden, J. (2010). Combining methods in

the technology intelligence process: application in an

aerospace manufacturing ﬁrm. R&d Management,

40(2):181–194.

Ashton, W. B., Kinzey, B. R., and Gunn, M. E. (1991). A

structured approach for monitoring science and tech-

nology developments. International Journal of Tech-

nology Management, 6(1-2):91–111.

Best, P. (2010). Delivering maximum strategic value with

market monitoring.

CEDIA (2023). Vigilancia Tecnol

ogica (VTIC).

Comai, A. (2011). Inteligencia competitiva: logros y de-

saf

ıos. Profesional de la informaci

on, 20(5):489–494.

Kosenko, O. P., Kobielieva, T. O., and Tkachova, N. P.

(2017). Monitoring the commercial potential of in-

tellectual property. Науковий вiсник Полiсся, (1

(2)):140–145.

Lasso, D. and Burbano, A. (2022). Innovando el sector de

los superalimentos.

Levine, S. S., Bernard, M., and Nagel, R. (2017). Strate-

gic intelligence: The cognitive capability to anticipate

competitor behavior. Strategic Management Journal,

38(12):2390–2423.

Mina, A., Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E., and Hughes, A.

(2014). Open service innovation and the ﬁrm’s

search for external knowledge. Research Policy,

43(5):853–866.

Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J., and Probert, D. R. (2004). Tech-

nology roadmapping—a planning framework for evo-

lution and revolution. Technological forecasting and

social change, 71(1-2):5–26.

Randieri, C. (2023). Council Post: The Role Of Scientiﬁc

Research In Driving Business Innovation. Section: In-

novation.

Rohrbeck, R. (2010). Harnessing a network of experts for

competitive advantage: technology scouting in the ict

industry. R&d Management, 40(2):169–180.

Rohrbeck, R. and Kum, M. E. (2018). Corporate fore-

sight and its impact on ﬁrm performance: A longitu-

dinal analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 129:105–116.

Rottensteiner, A. and Ploder, C. (2022). Identifying and

assessing knowledge gaps in iso 9001 certiﬁed smes

using a knowledge audit framework. In Proceedings

of the 14th International Joint Conference on Knowl-

edge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowl-

edge Management, Valletta, Malta, pages 158–162.

Savioz, P. (2006). Technology intelligence systems: prac-

tices and models for large, medium-sized and start-up

companies. International Journal of Technology Intel-

ligence and Planning, 2(4):360–379.

Simpson, S. (2018). (5) The Three Biggest Challenges in

Scouting New Tech and Emerging Trends | LinkedIn.

Stute, M., Sardesai, S., Parlings, M., Senna, P. P., For-

nasiero, R., and Balech, S. (2021). Technology scout-

ing to accelerate innovation in supply chain. Next gen-

eration supply chains: A roadmap for research and

innovation, pages 129–145.

Timimi, I. and Chaudiron, S. (2008). Information ﬁltering

as a knowledge organization process: techniques and

evaluation.

ul Hasnain Kazmi, S. (2016). 11 - managing common ﬁnan-

cial risks. In Green, P. E., editor, Enterprise Risk Man-

agement, pages 151–160. Butterworth-Heinemann,

Boston.

UNE (2018). Gesti

on de la I+D+i: Sistema de vigilancia e

inteligencia.

Wang, C.-H. and Quan, X. I. (2021). The role of ex-

ternal technology scouting in inbound open innova-

tion generation: Evidence from high-technology in-

dustries. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-

ment, 68(6):1558–1569.

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

264