Graphene Roadmap Briefs (No. 1): innovation interfaces of the Graphene Flagship

The evolutionary development of the graphene TIR process is deeply entangled with the European Graphene Flagship. Both root back to the early 2010 years, when the European 2D material research community came together to turn the hype momentum in the wake of the 2010 physics Nobel prize [5] into a longer lasting research and development agenda. In 2011, leading scientists received a preparatory seed grant [6] for the then novel EU Flagship mechanism. By 2012, they had aggregated their joint visions in an S&T roadmap [6]. It created the foundation for both the Graphene Flagship proposal [7] and the 2015S&T roadmap publication [8].

The Graphene Flagship consortium began its work in 2013 and launched a competitive call [9] to design and implement a mechanism for regular roadmap updates. Based on our successful offer, Fraunhofer ISI joined the project consortium in 2014. Our approach includes the integration of market and innovation perspectives (see below) that drive our implementation of the TIR process of the Graphene Flagship ever since.

Figure 1 summarizes the different phases of the roadmap process in context of the Graphene Flagship. Its preparation process triggered intense exchange between numerous key scientists resulting in the initial S&T roadmap of 2012 [6] and its refined publication in 2015 [8] (in orange). In parallel, the second phase the roadmap process (in yellow) started in 2014, when the Graphene Flagship assigned us with the mission to add market perspective covering the full breadth of conceivable applications of GRMs as identified by the scientists. We engaged in numerous interviews with experts from industry and the Graphene Flagship, before organizing two large portfolio assessment workshops in 2016. The gathered insights also formed the foundation for 31 subject-specific roadmaps covering promising fields for GRM applications. Our full STI roadmap report [10] was fed back into the Graphene Flagship in 2017 where it informed the planning process of subsequent project phases. The dedicated Graphene Flagship roadmap website [11] now showcases selected content from the STI report, while key scientists currently work on refining its science domain sections for its full publication as successor of the comprehensive roadmap published in 2015.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

In 2017, our team entered into the third phase of the TIR process (in magenta) that persists today. The goal shifted towards further depth of analysis, in particular regarding opportunities and bottlenecks for wider diffusion of GRM-based innovations. With the realization that market peculiarities in no way stop at the level of primary GRM application fields, but further branch out with their downstream utilization, typically over several aggregation steps to highly complex end products. The intended depth thus practically forbade complete in-breadth coverage of the full diversity of GRM application.

Instead, we decided to focus on very specific utilization scenarios including the full path towards final products. We developed the 3I mechanism to implement this value chain based approach. Here, we introduce the underlying conceptual framework (chapter 2) and discuss its practical implementation in the Graphene Flagship (chapter 3). The full portfolio of GRM applications (chapter 4) as assessed in 2016 formed a solid starting point for the selection of most relevant focus topics (chapter 5). We begin with a brief discussion of our general TIR scope and approach in the context of other roadmap work in the GRM field and the intended function for the Graphene Roadmap Brief series.

Initiated by the European Graphene Flagship, the TIR process aims to guide the community towards the development of products based on graphene, related (2D) materials, and hybrid systems (GRM). The TIR goal is outlining the principle rules to develop the GRM knowledge base, the means of production and development of new devices, aiming at a final integration of GRM into systems. These objectives address three main target groups: (a) the internal Graphene Flagship community; (b) external research communities; and (c) industry—which shall be supported in recognizing the potentials of GRM for future applications. In that sense, the graphene TIR aggregates a common view on GRM and provides guidance for graphene research towards market demands. In particular, the TIR offers strategic guidance for both the Graphene Flagship and the industrial uptake of GRM.

Figure 2 illustrates the general fusion approach that forms the underlying principle for the entire TIR process. It complements the traditional S&T roadmapping with market-side intelligence on industrial needs. The former (on the left, in blue) aggregates present and future technology offers enabled by GRM, while the latter compiles insights from relevant markets and sectors (on the right, in yellow) that potentially require novel solutions for certain practical needs.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

In this context, innovation research distinguishes between 'technology push' and 'market pull' [12], which essentially reflect the supply of and demand for novel technology. Often, both sides only interact by coincidence, despite their alignment constitutes a crucial success factor that determines the innovation impact. Our fusion approach (in the middle, in red) intends to bridge that gap and, thus, match technology development enabled or enhanced by GRM with industrial market need.

In a first step, we identified four overarching application areas (see chapter 4 for brief descriptions) where applied GRM research and industrial interests may overlap. Their definitions remained coarse enough to comprehend the full diversity of GRM applications, but still helped to structure earlier roadmap reports and guide their readers. At the highest aggregation level, figure 8 below visualizes the most promising GRM application fields for each area according to our 2016 analysis. The fusion approach (figure 2) already foreshadowed value chain context when identifying STI domains with material, component, and system production levels.

However, we had to widen our scope significantly to achieve advanced depth of analysis. In practice, the crucial gap between the supply of and the demand for novel technical solutions may replicate multiple times along practically existing or potential future value chains.

Figure 3 depicts a highly generalized value chain that consists of those three fundamental levels of materials supply (light blue), component production (light red), and systems integration (light yellow) mentioned before. However, their identification with STI domains may be misleading as all the above co-exist in different shapes and forms at each given step along any practical value chain. In particular, viable industrial actors cover each single step of the supply chain once a value chain matures.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Independent entities often specialize in a certain value addition step, but also sub-units of vertically integrated corporations may fulfill that function. When novel materials and technologies emerge, start-ups and university spin-outs may be the first actors on early markets. On an abstract level, all commercial stakeholders of readily existing and emerging value chains share the desire to expedite their very own business. In particular, they usually seek to advance their production towards the ability to offer higher value to their downstream customers. Upstream innovations usually only spark interest according to their capacity to enable advanced products and/or cost reductions.

GRM rarely offer any direct economic value by themselves, but they hold outstanding promise as enabling factor for novel or advanced secondary technologies that may (or may not) impact virtually any economic sector. Along the way, the crucial gap between supply of and demand for novel technology as visualized in our fusion approach (figure 2) essentially breaks down into multitude of more specific replicates, which may form structuring elements for potential future value chains enabled by GRM (figure 3). This series of gaps between technology supply and demand explicitly includes the translation of (a) fundamental GRM research (on discovery and synthesis of materials) into commercially sustainable production, (b) applied GRM research (in specific application fields) into mass production, but also (c) research and development at all further downstream integration into desirable (pre-)products. Independent of their position along the value chain, typical industrial stakeholder directly face exactly two of those gaps. They all hope to create an offer of technologically enhanced products relevant to their downstream customers and, thus, may require technologically enhanced supplies themselves.

The ability to deliver enhanced value to end customers will determine the fate of any conceivable value chain. Eventually, these may create GRM impact on economic and societal levels that may be decisive for the future appreciation of the underlying scientific research. We designed and implemented the 3I concept following the value chain approach (figure 3) to gain in-depth insights into the status of GRM-enabled innovations and the prospects for their diffusion. Our 3I analyses always focus on very specific applications of GRM and their potential utilization in certain downstream industries. Thus, individual results exclusively highlight the selected innovation chain. Combined, the continuously growing ensemble of our focus studies approximate the overall status and prospects of GRM-enabled innovation.

Our novel format of Graphene Roadmap Briefs intends to close a crucial gap in the literature with a specific focus on innovation enabled by GRM. Peer-reviewed publications and patent records usually document progress in science and technology dimensions pretty well. Review articles regularly summarize the progress for popular aspects and applications of GRM. Scientific roadmap articles usually complement broader progress reports with aggregated visions of leading researchers. In contrast, market dimensions lack a systematic literature base. Company reporting often specifically avoids the disclosure of key information, while incentives may exist to emphasize side aspects of lesser relevancy. Market studies typically attempt to aggregate, quantify, and project market intelligence. However, no external quality assurance mechanisms comparable to peer-review or patent examination exist and the merit of market projections may only become visible in hindsight.

Graphene Roadmap Briefs neither attempt to compete with scientific roadmaps nor with market studies. In contrast, our innovation roadmaps explore the largely uncharted territory in between these categories. They aggregate in-depths insights into the emerging GRM IS. We focus to resolve qualitative interrelations that may determine the diffusion of GRM and their applications, including the economic context and non-technological frame conditions. In this sense, innovation roadmaps complement scientific ones, but the different nature of their content requires separate modes of publication.

Scientific roadmaps often take years of meticulous refining from the initial aggregation of visions to their eventual publication (exemplified by figure 1 above). The authors may still add in novel results appearing in the scientific literature in the meantime, which may rather enhance the quality of results. In contrast, innovation roadmaps aggregate the insights and expectations of the involved industry experts at the very time of analysis. Their judgment, markets, and economic boundary conditions may all be subject sudden changes opposed to the rather steady growth of the S&T knowledge base. Hence, older innovation roadmaps still provide intriguing insights into innovation status and prospects at the time of analysis, but they may lose some of their immediate relevance over time.

Over the past years, the Graphene Flagship increasingly focuses the industrialization of GRM. The TIR process aggregates a common view to guide GRM research towards market demands. In this context, it addresses three major target groups: (a) the internal Graphene Flagship community; (b) external research communities; and (c) industry (promoting the recognition of future GRM application potentials). The objective of the TIR process gradually shifts from a focus on informing internal planning towards the inclusion of external actors. Here, the new format of Graphene Roadmap Briefs shall enable timely publication of key TIR results to enhance their accessibility beyond Graphene Flagship members and external experts that contribute to our analyses.

We dedicate this inaugural issue to provide context to our present TIR work in historic, conceptual and methodical dimensions, concluding with a coarse overview of the broad GRM application portfolio and the rationale for our selection of focus topics. Future issues will detail our roadmap results for individual innovation chains or cover overarching aspects of the GRM IS derived from both explicit 3I analysis and complementary innovation research.

Our TIR research is embedded in the theoretical framework of ISs [14] that initially intended to develop an understanding of innovation capacities on regional or national levels. However, TISs [15] often straddle both geographical and sectoral boundaries. Due to the fundamental nature of materials innovation, GRM may also straddle multiple traditional TIS boundaries, but diffusion processes and, thus, visibility of their impacts may require several decades [4]. Historically, we may recognize similar, overarching MISs triggered by the emergence of novel materials and material processing capabilities (such as steel, silicon, plastics). In case GRM only become remotely as influential in the future, our earlier application portfolio analyses (figure 8) may just scratch the surface.

The actual extent of the GRM IS will probably remain debatable for years to come. Attempts to study the entirety of such a (potentially) comprehensive MIS in earliest stages of its infancy may be bound to rather abstract and macroscopic levels. In contrast, the objective of the TIR process is to explore (and potentially promote) the dynamics of GRM innovation today. On an MLP [16], we can also resolve meso- and microscopic dimensions of our scope. Macroscopically, the niche of GRM may eventually enter the rather abstract regime of the general materials. In practice, such a long-term process will consist of numerous semi-independent interactions at the level of specific GRM applications or even end-product categories.

For instance, GRM represent niche conductivity additives for battery electrodes and promise to complement this regime covered by carbon black today. Similar niche-regime relations exist on the level of novel battery concepts to challenge current lithium-ion technology, or electric mobility versus internal combustion engine vehicles. In principle, each level (almost) constitutes a TIS in its own right. However, (sub-)TIS interactions determine the dynamic of the overarching innovation process. In retrospect, crucial MIS (such as steel, silicon, plastics) inflict major impact on our entire society and most of its subsystems. In early anticipation, novel MIS often drive major hype cycles. Eventually, induced value creation for future end-customers will determine their actual relevance.

Fundamentally, we may argue that the discovery of GRM triggered the emergence a new MIS, which currently remains in earliest stages of its infancy. Hence, that MIS merely exists as a meta-level construct and consists of (perhaps rather overlaps with) a growing number of semi-independent (and usually pre-existing) TIS. In particular, the primary material innovation (GRM) gains its entire impact by enabling secondary and tertiary innovations in subsequent TIS.

Here, the rationale to consider innovation 'both an individual and a collective act' [17] therefore gains particular relevance. Virtually any conceivable GRM-enabled innovation requires the emergence or transformation of complex, cross-sectoral value networks. However, the judgment of individual actors (entrepreneurs, innovators) relevant for the emerging MIS mainly applies to their own position in present or any future value chains (which represent specific strains of the comprehensive MIS).

In incumbent TIS, vertical knowledge exchange mechanisms develop along established supply–demand relationships, often manifested in bilateral co-development projects protected by strict non-disclosure. Value chain oriented research and development as sketched in figure 3 constitutes common practice in mature industries. In contrast, novel niche technologies often not only lack critical mass and momentum, but also established interfaces with potential value chain partners on up- and downstream level. We consider this imbalance amongst the key driving factors for 'all kinds of evolutionary improvements' at regime level often to outcompete alternatives at niche level, and therefore stabilize the empirical observation that 'technological progress often proceeds along certain trajectories' [18].

The objective of our TIR work, however, is to analyze and, possibly, promote the innovation dynamics enabled by GRM. The emergent status of that MIS obviously implies that conceivable future value chains only achieve unfavorable niche status at best today. Often they plainly do not quite exist yet. Of course, many GRM applications may not outperform conventional or alternative solutions and, thus, eventually fail for technical reasons. In other cases, however, the inertia of the conventional technology regime may suppress or at least delay the diffusion of favorable solutions enabled by GRM.

Hence, we translate our objective into the identification and evaluation of promising potential future value chains. Ideally, our activities may even stimulate crucial exchange processes, and thus contribute to the mitigation of inherent niche disadvantages. The success of our approach bases on a bottom-up approach, where we construct and iteratively refine purpose oriented innovation chains as hypothetical analogues to actual value chains. Following our refined approach in figure 3, innovation chains consist of innovation spheres that replicate major supply chain levels. Finally, we identify the hypothetical market levels that foreshadow future supply–demand relationships between neighboring innovation spheres as innovation interfaces.

2.3.1. Innovation spheres

2.3.2. Innovation interfaces

2.3.3. Potential impact of 3I focus analysis

Our focus investigations tie in with earlier TIR results, which resolved desired GRM utilization benefits over the full breadth of conceivable applications. In contrast, we now specifically focus a single field of envisioned technology for in-depth resolution of the associated innovation framework. It includes understanding the full value creation process down to final product level, current solutions in the market and their expected development trajectories, and other conceivable contenders. Beyond desk research, we often attend scientific conferences and trade fairs and involve a key actor as an advisor early on in a specific 3I campaign.

The identification of the most relevant final product market(s) ⁴ for the specific GRM application (area) selected for investigation allows us to trace the envisioned supply chain back to GRM supply and production as a (potentially) relevant value creation process. It usually entails several value-added steps from the supply of relevant GRM, specific GRM applications, relevant integration steps into components or systems to the manufacture of final products promising competitive advantages over the present state-of-the-art.

The result of the conception stage constitutes a draft design for the most relevant stakeholder groups that will function as innovation spheres in the following stages. Simultaneously, the researchers achieve a certain level of technical literacy all along the considered innovation chain that serves as an essential requisite for all further steps.

For the further elaboration of the innovation chain, we then engage in an extensive expert consultation strategy. Here, our role is comparable to an honest broker of information, who experts trust to share both personal opinions and confidential information with. In general (and often explicitly), we ensure our consultation partners of a high level of confidentiality inspired by Chatham House Rule [19]. We also approach them at a qualified eye level ⁵ and often specifically request their insights and opinions to controversial topics in the field. Due to the highly specialized (and often speculative) nature of the topic, the base of relevant experts usually is extremely small. Every individual may bring a very different perspective and knowledge base due to their different position in the innovation chain. Literature, patents and market studies ⁶ , identify initial key stakeholders, while we iteratively extend our expert pool based on recommendations. Eventually, increasing frequency of reference to identical experts from different angles indicates a comprehensive mapping of the innovation chain under investigation.

Goals of the consultation process include the consolidation and validation of the insights gained regarding the respective application area, testing and refining the layout of the innovation spheres, critical discussion of the prospects and shortfalls of the envisioned technology, and distribution of information regarding the ongoing 3I initiative. In particular, consultations also serve as a pre-selection mechanism to identify and select particularly distinguished experts capable to represent key perspectives all along the entire innovation chain at the roadmap workshop our 3I study culminates in. The results of the consultation phase include a provisional summary of content results that we share with confirmed participants to support their preparation for the workshop and to provide us with an initial validation of our findings.

The 3I workshop concept significantly differs from typical formats in natural sciences or engineering (that often simply accumulate PowerPoint presentations) and provides an active, participative setting based on moderated group discussions. The concept relies (a) on the complementary expertise of the participants basically representing all major aspects of the envisioned value chain, (b) on an open discussion atmosphere ensured by adequate confidentiality agreements (in analogy to Chatham House Rule [19]), and (c) on adequate group size. The careful selection of participants (based on personal evaluation from the consultation process) hence represents a critical requisite for a successful workshop. Explicit goals of the workshop include (a) identification of the present status and anticipated developments of the individual key industries along the innovation chain, (b) definition and critical discussion of common KPIs across the innovation chain, and (c) technologic, economic, and temporal alignment of the development perspectives in the frame of a specific innovation roadmap. Implicit goals include the exchange of information and perspectives along the envisioned innovation chain (including networking opportunities) to uncover collaboration potentials and, eventually, market advantages for the participating entities and the European economy in general.

Typically, a 3I focus workshop assembles a carefully balanced selection of about 20 key experts ⁷ whose collective perspectives cover the entire innovation chain. However, most individual perspectives usually represent core aspects of a single innovation sphere. Sometimes individuals already straddle one of the innovation interfaces we identified, or represent overarching aspects (such as regulation, standardization, public funding, private equity, policy, etc). Three major steps of interactive discussions structure the workshop agenda towards an explorative roadmap for the innovation chain under investigation.

3.3.1. Input/output analysis at innovation sphere level

An initial round of parallel discussions separately addresses each innovation sphere involved with a focus on the present state of the respective industry. The format explicitly considers I/O factors relevant to the group as detailed in figure 4. For this purpose, the workshop forum splits into three groups with participants assigned based on their expertise and perspective. Obviously, it is essential to achieve a balanced distribution of participants throughout the entire innovation chain by careful selection of invitees beforehand.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

In practice, the assignment of individuals to groups can be implemented either by free choice of participants or via pre-assignment by the facilitators (e.g. by subtle markers on name badges) based on prior impressions from the consultation process. Our 3I principles ensure a stringent design of the innovation chain and according invitation of experts. Hence, group composition should essentially not depend on the assignment process, and we gained equally good experience with both approaches. Ideally, self-assignment may enhance the identification of experts with their group. Participants, however, often appreciate clear directions when exposed to the still unfamiliar 3I format. In any case, pre-assigning experts may slightly streamline the workshop agenda, which benefits to maximize workshop results within a strictly limited timeframe.

Figure 4 lays out the input/output discussion format. The members of each stakeholder group share a common perspective based on their position in the envisioned supply chain (top). We assign each group with the task to discuss their present status and expectations for the near-term future based on I/O considerations. The format creates a common understanding of corporate entities representing the stakeholder group in the context of readily existing and/or possible future value chains. On a technical perspective (top), such entities create value turning physical pre-products and other production factors (left) into desirable products (right). In this regard, the discussion traces present and intended market interactions of the stakeholder group with both upstream suppliers and downstream clients and customers. On an economic perspective (bottom), the discussion also considers the framework conditions entities operate (left) in and the customer groups and markets they target (right). Here, relevant factors may vary significantly, from regulatory conditions, over access to capital markets, product images and perceptions in the media, etc.

We always assign at least one member of our team for active moderation to each discussion group. Moderators usually gained substantial subject-specific knowledge and personal interaction experience with the involved experts during the consultation phase, enabling them to steer the discussion in an effective fashion. We encourage participants to document central aspects of the discussion (on sticky notes) and arrange these in the I/O framework (on a board structured similar to figure 4). During the discussion, each group assigns a speaker (or a team) among them for a brief presentation of the I/O results regarding their respective innovation sphere towards the workshop plenum.

3.3.2. SWOT analysis at innovation interface level

A secondary round of parallel discussions then ties in with the earlier results in a new constellation addressing the critical innovation interfaces between the innovation spheres. The format particularly addresses the SWOT associated with joint technology and product development as detailed in figure 5. For this purpose, the workshop forum splits into two new groups. Essentially, we achieve this constellation by merging adjacent innovation spheres. Of course, this requires a split of innovation spheres in middle positions ⁸ , either solvable by self-assignment or pre-determination.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Figure 5 lays out the SWOT discussion template (bottom) for each of the considered innovation interface (top). We assign each group with the task to envision and critically discuss opportunities for collaborative technology and product development. Once the supply chain matures, the output of the upstream innovation sphere should contribute to the input of the downstream one.

Eventually, supply–demand relationships may formalize the innovation interface and govern regular interactions. At the given time, our workshop creates a unique opportunity for experts to benchmarks to their expectations and visions with those of their prospective suppliers or clients.

Typically, we ask experts to focus internal factors that the involved innovation spheres may control or at least influence first. This always includes USPs of conceivable technologies and KPIs relevant for their joint development. Topics usually also include costs, quality, performance, etc of novel technologies, products or services. Later on, moderators steer the discussion to external factors that govern the framework conditions stakeholders operate in (in case these do not automatically come up during the discussion).

Again, we request experts to document and allocate key elements of the discussion in the SWOT framework of their innovation interface (on a board structured similar to figure 5). We consider the innovation interface discussion a crucial centerpiece of our workshop. Hence, we usually dedicate two moderators to each group, reserve an essential share of the workshop time, and often allow experts to switch groups during breaks in case they want to engage on both sides. Again, the session ends with brief plenary result presentations by selected representatives of each group.

3.3.3. Exploratory roadmap at innovation chain level

In a final session, we employ explorative roadmapping techniques to allocate key results on a future timeline exemplified by figure 6. Several options exist to facilitate the transfer of key content from earlier sessions:

• Moderator led (requesting guidance from the plenum).
• Individual experts (self-organized, highly parallelized, moderators only offer support upon request).
• Group work (for each innovation sphere, moderated).
• Plenary format (directly combining result discussion).

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

We gained good experiences with all the approaches above including certain combinations thereof. Usually, we come prepared for various options and decide for the most promising format on the spot considering group dynamics, timing, and specifics of the topic. No matter how the results took place, we always dedicate the final portion of the workshop to a plenary discussion focusing the alignment of activities across innovation interfaces.

Figure 6 lays out our fundamental roadmap design. On the horizontal axis, we provide a timeline roughly assigning short-term, medium-term, and long-term time horizons to certain years. The vertical axis indicates the envisioned value creation process illustrated by the sequence of innovation spheres. In the aspired success scenario, stakeholders will successively build an active supply chain jointly creating competitive products. At present, most experts mostly consider timelines and target values for KPIs (yellow), milestones (green), and bottlenecks (red) for their very own innovation sphere (and usually in internally relevant metrics). Hence, we often allow for initial group work targeting individual roadmaps for each innovation spheres first (see above). The final plenary discussion then challenges the alignment of time scales (whether expected inputs become available in time, or novel output supply streams may match a market demand) and serves the identification of joint goals and common KPI across innovation interfaces (to support the formation of supply–demand relationships when the value chain emerges).

3.3.4. Documentation phase

The 3I approach clearly focusses qualitative in-depth innovation research, and we have adopted many established elements from qualitative research approaches towards utilization in 3I context. However, the success of 3I initiatives also relies on access to appropriate quantitative innovation research practices and their results. In particular, we utilize quantitative analyses regarding science, technology, and market dimensions to analyze and monitor general global trends in GRM-related research and innovation.

3.4.1. Bibliometry and patent analysis

Scientific publications reflect research activities, while patent applications refer to rather market-oriented technology development activities. For publication searches, we often utilize the online version of the database Scopus to benefit from regular updates and, thus, coverage of most recent publications. Key word searches for title, abstract, the author key words or the supplementary terms constitute common practice. Patent analyses also often utilize key word based search strategies in the PATSTAT database of the European Patent Office (EPO) and in the World Patents Index (WPI) online database. While the former covers the patent applications of about 50 patent offices worldwide, the latter provides better text disclosure due to the transformation of the official abstracts into more useful technical descriptions. Typically, we first compose the basic definition of our samples employing WPI. A transfer to PATSTAT then provides access to better analysis tools. Figure 7 exemplifies results obtained for graphene. Publications usually appear at a rate of 8–10 times higher than patents in fields of knowledge-intense technologies such as graphene. At different intensities, very similar developments occurred at most global markets (e.g. US, JP, KR): patent counts developed at higher dynamic in early years and roughly turned into a saturation mode starting in 2011, while publication numbers transitioned rather steadily from exponential to linear behavior.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Note that patent searches at specific domestic patent offices inevitably lead to a domestic advantage for the analyzed country [20]. Transnational patent records avoid such bias as combining either applications at the European Patent Office or international applications according to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). In both cases the applications aim at several external markets and the cost of applications are substantial (between 20 000 and 70 000 €). Therefore, transnational patents represent a selection of applications with high economic value, and offer the possibility of a fair country comparison.

3.4.2. Meta-market analysis

Once receiving an initial grant to develop and implement a continuous roadmap process to advance the initial S&T roadmap [8], Fraunhofer ISI began to elaborate the initial phase of the TIR process combining various qualitative and quantitative methods in 2014. Desk research concentrated analyzing the existing S&T roadmap, complementary literature, and market studies. Application specific innovation aspects were aggregated from a series of expert interviews (face-to-face and by phone) with work package leaders of the Graphene Flagship as well as industrial representatives both within and beyond the project consortium. The semi-structured interviews covered a broad range of innovation aspects, including:

• technology: performance today, performance potential, USP, complexity, ease of use;
• production: scalability today, scalability potential, integrativeness today, integrativeness potential, production cost;
• applications: cost reduction today, cost reduction potential, diversity of applications, product value;
• market: justified cost vs. function gain, market volume, market competitiveness;
• timing: time to market assessment.

In total, we carried out 65 interviews in the initial TIR phase. Among those, 63% of the interview partners carried Graphene Flagship affiliations (members or associates), while 71% represented industrial entities (both within and beyond the project). An initial, Graphene Flagship internal workshop informed project members about the progress of the TIR strategy and gathered their feedback and recent insights on 13 October 2015 in Berlin.

Our analysis culminated in two broad roadmap workshops assembling stakeholders from industry and research. They served (a) the validation and refinement of our results, (b) their further harmonization, and (c) creation of common views on GRM utilization prospects in major application areas. Three major sessions structured both workshops. They started with an analysis of (SWOT associated with individual GRM application areas, followed by a portfolio analysis aggregating the insights of the participants into both technical and market potential for each topic. Finally, a roadmap session explicitly aggregated estimates on contemporary TRLs, the timing and development path for GRM utilization in various application areas and related markets, as well as important challenges and barriers (red brick walls).

Table 1 provides an overview on organizational details for both roadmap workshops informing our assessment of the GRM application portfolio below. We received strongly positive feedback from participants, appreciating the forum for combining research and industry, for promoting exchange of ideas, for gaining new ideas and perspectives, as well as for successful implementation and productive outcomes. However, some industrial participants hesitated disclosing information on KPI and internal GRM-related activities for confidentiality reasons.

We aggregated the workshop results on semi-empirical scales from most (++) to least (−) promising on both technology and market dimensions for all GRM application areas assessed. The technology potential dimension summarizes the benefit of GRM utilization compared to existing and other conceivable solutions in the field, while market potential dimension considers the economic prospects of novel solutions particularly regarding the European market (domestic from the perspective of the Graphene Flagship). In particular, the ratings have been discussed and validated by the participants of both workshops described above.

In total, the 2017 TIR version [10] identified and covered 73 GRM application areas. Figure 8 provides a highest-level portfolio overview for all those receiving a strictly positive assessment of both technology and market perspectives then. It groups individual application areas in four major fields of application. Their definitions remain broad and may overlap, but still provide readers better access and indicate a certain level of commonality for each field.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Their coarse descriptions below can only provide a first glimpse. We highly recommend the full 2017 roadmap [10] and its refined publication version (to appear soon) for full context and reference. The exemplary citations below only point to a few highly recognized scientific review papers without indicating a particular preference for their content over numerous similar high-quality publications.

4.3.1. Composites and coatings

4.3.2. Energy generation and storage

4.3.3. Electronics and photonics

4.3.4. Biomedical

In 2017, we began with the conception of the 3I approach and possible implementation strategies dedicated to in-depth exploration of GRM innovation context. Earlier TIR results (see chapter 4) served as a major guidance criterion for the selection of most promising topics (focusing application areas ranked strictly positive for both, technical and market prospects). Further down selection relied on qualitative and quantitative feedback from the Graphene Flagship (gathered in informal discussions as well as by a brief survey), but also on research, experience and insights of members of the Graphene Roadmap Team. Some choices also considered strategic development aspects within the Graphene Flagship (business development, alignment with technical product development initiatives).

Table 2 summarizes the initial four focus investigations executed within the current TIR phase. The dedicated format required as rather small workshop format (target group size: about 20 people) and highly diversified expertise covering the entire innovation chain. Fraunhofer ISI actively pre-selected prospective participants based on desk research and a thorough consultation process (see above). Only distinct experts bringing relevant additional expertise actually qualified for participation were invited after careful selection. Besides the total number of experts consulted within each focus investigation, the table also quantifies the number of industry perspectives ⁹ involved.

The positive experience and detailed results gathered with the initial 3I studies encouraged the continuation of our focus investigation strategy from 2018 onwards. Of course, our topic selection still followed similar criteria, but we refined the process and considered additional aspects. For instance, we systematically consulted with the leadership of technical work packages throughout the Graphene Flagship to consider both their insights and most recent technical developments. We also engage in informal exchange with GRM and secondary industry experts frequently. Moreover, we began to regularly consider strategic aspects both within the Flagship and for the development of our 3I focus result portfolio.

Tables 3 and 4 summarize implementation details for the six most recent 3I focus investigations roughly grouped regarding the nature of GRM utilization. Our goals and criteria regarding target group size (about 20 people), diversity of expertise (covering the entire innovation chain), and participant selection (based on expertise, perspective, and distinction evidenced by thorough consultations) remain unchanged for all 3I studies carried out so far.

Please note that the division line between microintegration is not always sharp (for instance, the biosensor topic included both, printing of flexible devices and microsensor arrays). In total, we consulted with 219 key experts in the most recent phase of the TIR process. More than half of our consultation partners (114) represented relevant industry perspectives.

In the future, the TIR will further evolve in line with the maturation of GRM research and innovation. Our goals shift further towards informing European industry on potential future GRM value chains also involving downstream stakeholders:

• OEMs aggregate complex value networks that may change or improve when advanced GRM applications enter their supply chain. We envision the TIR to provide a reliable reference point to OEMs to identify and implement GRM-derived competitive advantages.
• Intermediary suppliers (on component, device and sub-system levels) benefit from in-depth elaboration of specific value chains. The TIR process also creates unique exchange opportunities stimulating future supply and demand relationships that are crucial for GRM industrialization.
• The primary GRM sector (e.g. producers of powders or inks) requires clear targets (cost, quality, volume, etc) derived from demands of potential customers. GRM suppliers may become key beneficiaries of more normative TIR formats.

Achieving these ambitious goals requires an intensification of our focus investigation strategy that enables us to elaborate specific value chains where GRM may provide an USP using both established and advanced formats:

• Exploration of novel topics is critical both to keep track of the dynamic emergence of novel GRM application areas and to expand the in-depth coverage to a representative ensemble of GRM applications.
• Advanced focus investigation of highlight topics (i.e. high impact GRM application areas such as batteries) will enable to review and expand these roadmaps.
• Beyond focus formats may include vision development (e.g. for future of GRM-production in Europe), demand-side driven normative roadmapping (for the emerging GRM supply industry) and context-specific (e.g. GRM utilization in space) portfolio assessment initiatives.

The novel format of Graphene Roadmap Briefs contributes to our goal to improve timely accessibility of our results to stakeholders in industry, policy, and the public. We currently conduct a survey among past focus workshop participants, our extended expert pool, and Graphene Flagship leadership in order to support our decision process on future focus topics.