ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2900–2906

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Renewable energy technology portfolio planning with scenario analysis:

A case study for Taiwan
Tser-Yieth Chen a,1, Oliver S. Yu b,2, George Jyh-yih Hsu c,d,, Fang-Ming Hsu e,3, Wei-Nown Sung f
a
Graduate Institute of International Business, National Taipei University, No. 151, University Road, Sanhsia, 23701, Taipei County, Taiwan, ROC
b
School of Business, National Dong Hwa University, President and CEO, The STARS Group, 495 South San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California, USA
c
Department of Management Information Systems, National Chung Hsing University, No. 250, Kuo Kuang Road. Taichung, 402, Taiwan, ROC
d
Department of Applied Economics, National Chung Hsing University, No. 250, Kuo Kuang Road. Taichung, 402, Taiwan, ROC
e
Department of Information Management, National Dong Hwa University, No. 1, Sec. 2, Da-Hsueh Rd. Shou-feng, Hualien, 97401, Taiwan, ROC
f
Department of International Business, National Dong Hwa University, No. 1, Sec. 2, Da-Hsueh Rd. Shou-feng, Hualien, 97401, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the results of a case study of applying a systematic and proven process of
Received 20 November 2008 technology portfolio planning with the use of scenario analysis to renewable energy developments in
Accepted 5 March 2009 Taiwan. The planning process starts with decision values of technology development based on a survey
Available online 21 April 2009
of society leaders. It then generates, based on expert opinions and literature search, a set of major
Keywords: technology alternatives, which in this study include: wind energy, photovoltaic, bio-energy, solar
Technology portfolio planning thermal power, ocean energy, and geothermal energy. Through a committee of technical experts with
Scenario analysis diversified professional backgrounds, the process in this study next constructs three scenarios (‘‘Season
Strategy planning process in the Sun’’, ‘‘More Desire than Energy’’, and ‘‘Castle in the Air’’) to encompass future uncertainties in the
relationships between the technology alternatives and the decision values. Finally, through a second
committee of professionals, the process assesses the importance and risks of these alternative
technologies and develops a general strategic plan for the renewable energy technology portfolio that is
responsive and robust for the future scenarios. The most important contributions of this paper are the
clear description of the systematic process of technology portfolio planning and scenario analysis, the
detailed demonstration of their application through a case study on the renewable energy development
in Taiwan, and the valuable results and insights gained from the application.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Global warming and fossil fuel depletion are two of the most
important issues confronting mankind in the 21st century (IEA,
2006; Chia, 1994). It has been well-recognized that an effective
solution to these issues is to develop non-carbon-dioxide-
emitting and inexhaustible renewable energy resources, such as
photovoltaics, wind energy, bio-energy, geothermal, and solar
thermal, and others (Wang et al., 1997).
With about 98% of its energy needs dependent on foreign
imports (Wu, 2005), Taiwan needs to develop renewable energy
 Corresponding author at. Department of Management Information Systems,
National Chung Hsing University, No. 250, Kuo Kuang Road. Taichung, 402, Taiwan,
ROC. Tel.: +886 4 22857798, +886 4 2284 0675; fax: +886 4 22857688.
E-mail addresses: chenty@mail.ntpu.edu.tw (T.-Y. Chen), yu_o@cob.sjsu.edu
(O.S. Yu), hsu@nchu.edu.tw (G.J.-y. Hsu), fmhsu@mail.ndhu.edu.tw (F.-M. Hsu),
m9633030@ems.ndhu.edu.tw (W.-N. Sung).
1
Tel.: +886 2 2673 6270; fax: +886 2 2673 6271.
2
Tel.: +1 650 922 5588; fax: +1 650 559 9421.
3
Tel.: +886 3 863 3107.
not only as a good global citizen, but also for its own energy
security considerations (Liu, 2002). Since there are many renew-
able energy technologies available and the resources for technol-
ogy development are limited, the Taiwan government has been
interested in a strategy for effective allocation of its limited
resources (ITRI, 2007).
This paper presents the results of a case study sponsored by
the Taiwan government through the Industrial Technology
Research Institute (ITRI) to explore such a strategy. The study
applies a systematic and proven process of technology portfolio
planning that focuses on the effective allocation of resources to a
portfolio, i.e., coordinated combination, of technologies to achieve
a set of decision values (Yu, 2006).
It should be noted that in terms of connection to global
environment economics, the study, although focusing on Taiwan,
does have some specific implications as well as limitations. First,
the technology portfolio planning methodology used in the study
can be equally, effectively applied to studies by other countries
facing the same issues of global warming and sustainable
development of renewable energy technologies,. Of course, the
given backgrounds and conditions in Taiwan are generally quite

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.028
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.-Y. Chen et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2900–2906
different from those of other countries. Thus, it should be
recognized that the results of such studies for other countries
may also be different, which imposes a limitation on the
transferability of the results of this study. Nevertheless, because
the global environmental economics are all interconnected and
because Taiwan is a fast-follower to the advanced countries, and a
successful economic development model to other developing
countries, the results from this study may serve as a useful
reference point to other countries in the world.
2. Literature review
In the last two decades, there have been many studies of
technology strategy planning. For example, Porter (1985) recog-
nized that a technology strategy provides the decision-maker a
strategic plan for addressing the technology type, level, author-
izations, and other issues in relation to overall corporate strategy.
Maidique and Patch (1988) further recognized that technology
strategy is a technology portfolio an enterprise develops to
acquire an advantage in the market. In addition, the intension of
strategy has been shown to include the following:
(1) If the technology is a core capability that an enterprise intends
to possess as essential to the strategy of business, then the
enterprise would tend to develop the technology by itself
(Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Steensam, 1996).
(2) If the enterprise intends to reduce the risks of technology
development, then it would often prefer buying the technol-
ogy from markets or jointly developing the technology with
other enterprises (Shan et al., 1994; Brown and Eisenhardt,
1995).
(3) If an enterprise positions its strategic posture as the leader in
the industry, and in addition, the enterprise is capable of
technology, then the enterprise tends to develop technology
with internal resources, (Shan et al., 1994; Steensam, 1996).
Over the years, SRI International (SRI, formerly Stanford
Research Institute) has also independently developed several
technology strategy planning techniques, including scenario
analysis, factor analysis, and strategy maps (SRI, 1996a, b, c). Yu
(2006) formalized a systematic procedure for strategic resource
allocation decision-making, and integrated many of the techni-
ques from SRI and other sources into a technology portfolio
planning process that has been successfully tested and proven in
many technology strategy studies for large business organizations
and government agencies around the world (Yu, 2006; Yu et al.,
1998; Chen, 2005).
The scenario analysis technique in the technology portfolio
planning process played a major role in the current case study and
will be further reviewed below.
A scenario describes a set of plausible future events, and their
causes and consequences. Porter (1991) observed that scenarios
are a plot development for a play script, or for a story outline or
content. Scenario analysis develops a set of structurally different
scenarios to encompass the major uncertainties in the future
business environment (Wack, 1985a, b). Linneman and Klein
(1985) noted that a scenario analysis applies quantification or
qualitative methods to help decision-makers prepare for the
future. Huss and Honton (1987) stressed that scenario analysis
can be adopted to appraise risk, and to examine the gap between
expectations and reality. Furthermore, Schoemaker (1995) and
Ringland (1998) considered scenario analysis as a tool for strategic
thinking, which can be integrated into strategic planning. Scenario
analysis thus involves neither forecasting nor prediction, but
instead is a form of exploration, which can be adopted to highlight
2901
future possibilities. Scenario analysis can help decision-makers
face uncertainty by supplying them with various possibilities for
future development (Schoemaker and Van der Heijden, 1992).
Regarding the scenario analysis, Schwartz (1996) stated that
the Royal Dutch Shell Corporation was the first to perform a ‘can
use’ scenario analysis successfully by implementing the six-stage
scenario steps proposed by SRI (1996a). Shell succeeded in a
highly competitive environment by planning for a scenario of
potential embargo by the oil producing countries in the early
1970s, when its competitors were still forecasting by traditional
point-forecast methods and caught totally unprepared for such a
possibility that really occurred in 1993 and 1998. Since then,
Linneman and Klein (1983) and Malaska (1985) noted that over
50% of the biggest European and US companies adopted scenario
analysis to support their long-term planning. Subsequently,
through Yu’s leadership, SRI (1996b) also added scenario analysis
to its technology planning process. Examples of successful
application of scenario analysis include transmission and dis-
tribution technology planning for Pacific Gas & Electric Company
preparing for potential California earthquakes (SRI, 1996c), and
Shell preparing to deal with high natural gas prices caused by the
collapse of the Soviet Union (Ringland, 1998).
3. The technology portfolio planning process
The technology portfolio planning process (Yu, 2006) provides
a systematic and proven procedure for the strategic decision of
finding a coordinated set of resource allocations among available
technologies (a technology portfolio) that best achieves the values
of the organization. It consists of four key elements:
(1) Identify decision values, which are the motivational forces for the
resource allocation decision: major methods for this element
include societal leader survey, analytic hierarchy process, and
utility analysis.
(2) Generate a set of technology alternatives: major methods for
this element include expert survey, brainstorming, and other
creative techniques.
(3) Forecast future relationships between alternatives and values:
major methods for this element include mathematical
modeling, traditional forecasting techniques, and scenario
analysis.
(4) Find the best alternative: in addition to the traditional
optimization techniques, such as linear programming a
dynamic programming, major methods for this element
include factor analysis, strategy map, and Pareto analysis.
Because of the large uncertainty involved in forecasting the
business environment and technical development of renewable
energy, scenario analysis has been used extensively in the current
case study and will be described in further details below.
The technology portfolio planning process with scenario
analysis has seven steps as shown in Fig. 1: (1) specify the
decision value and focus, (2) identify key decision factors and
major driving forces, (3) identify the axes of uncertainty, (4)
develop and select scenarios, (5) generate technology alternatives,
(6) assess the technology alternatives under different scenarios,
and (7) develop a robust technology portfolio plan.
Over the last two decades, this process has been widely applied
by SRI International and the STARS Group and proven effective in
business corporations and government agencies in the US (e.g.,
Tennessee Valley Authority, SRI, 1999), Japan (e.g., Mitsubishi
Electric Corporation, SRI, 1995), South Korea (e.g., LG Group, SRI,
1997), Taiwan (e.g., Ministry of Economic Affairs, STARS, 2006)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2902 T.-Y. Chen et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2900–2906
(1) Specify (2) Identify key (3) Develop axes
decision values decision factors of uncertainty
and focus for and major
scenarios driving forces
(4) Develop and select scenarios
(5) Generate (6) Assess (7) Develop a
technology technology robust
alternatives alternatives technology
under different portfolio plan
scenarios
Fig. 1. Technology portfolio planning process with scenario analysis.
and Western Europe (e.g., Statoil in Norway, SRI, 1990; and Fiat
Corporation in Italy, SRI, 1988).
4. Application of the process for the case study
For the case study, the values for the resource allocation
decision of the renewable energy technology portfolio were
derived from a survey of 65 society leaders in Taiwan. These
society leaders include technology experts, business executives,
government officials, major educators, prominent artists, and
community leaders. The resulting values indicate a 50% weight
on economic growth; a 25% weight on social equity, such as
reduction in the income gap and increase of the care of elderly and
disadvantaged populations; and a 25% weight on the quality of
life, including environmental quality and balance between work
and leisure. These values formed the basis for assessing the overall
importance of the technology alternatives.
A comprehensive list of alternative renewable energy technol-
ogies were collected from technical experts from its research
groups as well as from a broad literature search (Chen et al, 2007).
The list includes 22 technologies from six major fields of
renewable energy: photovoltaics, wind energy, bio-energy, solar
heating, geothermal energy, and ocean energy.
A Scenario Analysis Committee consisting of 14 experts
in technology, economics, business and other professional fields
was formed to conduct scenario analysis on the future relation-
ships between alternative technologies and the decision values.
Through extensive discussions of a set of topics shown in Table 1,
members of the committee identified key decision factors and
major driving forces in the future development of renewable
energy technologies.
Based on these driving forces and the subsequent axes of
uncertainty analysis, three future scenarios for the development
of renewable energy in Taiwan were developed.
A second Technology Assessment and Planning Committee
consisting of another 14 technology and policy analysts was
formed to assess the alternative technologies and develop a
renewable energy technology portfolio plan.
It is important to point out that although the application
focuses on Taiwan as a case study, the scope of the methodo-
logy of the technology portfolio planning process universal
and the specific detailed steps are generic and systematic. Thus,
it can be and has been applied to many other countries in
the world.
Table 1
Discussion topics for the scenario analysis committee members.
Topic
1 What fields of renewable energy technology have a good chance to be
developed in Taiwan over the next ten years?
2 The Ministry of Economic Affairs is in charge of renewable energy
development. What are the key decision factors that the decision makers
should be concerned with while planning the development strategy for
renewable energy technology?
3 What are the external driving forces that affect the ministry of economic
affairs in making decisions?
4 What other issues should be considered for the study?
5. Major results of the case study
5.1. Key decision factors, major driving forces, and scenario
development
Based on the discussions of the members of the Scenario
Analysis Committee, the key decision factors were identified and
grouped as follows:
Political factors: Taiwan government energy and industry
policies, related policies for the renewable energy industry,
and international environmental issues.
Technology factors: breakthroughs in renewable energy tech-
nology and the criteria for technology assessment.
Market factors: market demand of the renewable energy
related industry, the development of domestic industry, and
the requirements of the international market.
Natural resource factors: availability of renewable energy in
Taiwan and the supply costs of renewable energy.
Furthermore, major driving forces in the external business
environment have been identified and grouped as follows:
Policy driving forces: government industry policy and energy
policy.
Technology driving forces: position of renewable energy
technology and the developing cost of renewable energy.
International driving forces: international oil price, greenhouse
gas reduction requirements, international eco-issues, the
politics of foreign countries, and the international demand
for energy.
These major driving forces were then condensed into three axes
of uncertainty: the situation of global warming, the breakthrough
in renewable energy technology, and the government’s renewable
energy policy. Eight scenarios could be constructed from combin-
ing various extremes of the three axes of uncertainty as shown in
Table 2. However, by eliminating those combinations that were
not internally consistent and those that were similar to one
another, three plausible yet structurally different scenarios A, C
and H were selected to provide an envelope encompassing major
future uncertainty in the external business environment.
Each selected scenario was then given a title with additional
details as follows.
5.1.1. Scenario A: season in the sun
Scenario A represents an optimistic scenario for the renewable
energy industry in Taiwan. In this scenario, global temperature
continues to climb. In order to prevent further global warming,
the emission of carbon dioxide will be restrained in the future.
Furthermore, renewable energy technology has made significant
progress, and the government will strongly support policies
promoting the renewable energy industry.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.-Y. Chen et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2900–2906 2903

5.1.2. Scenario C: more desire than energy promote renewable energy industry actively, because it lacks the
In this scenario, the international community stresses the push from external driving forces. In general, there is little
gradual increase in environmental protection top balance the incentive for developing renewable energy industry in this
desired economic growth. Control of carbon dioxide still drives scenario.
the development of the renewable energy industry, but there is no
major technological breakthrough. As a result, the cost of renew-
able energy remains much higher than that of fossil energy. Even 5.2. Assessment of renewable energy technologies
though the Taiwan government still actively promotes renewable
energy, the development of the renewable energy industry will be After completion of the scenario analysis, the Technology
very slow. Assessment and Planning Committee then used the portfolio
analysis approach to assess the 22 candidate technologies from six
major fields of renewable energy: photovoltaics, wind energy, bio-
5.1.3. Scenario H: castle in the air energy, solar heating, geothermal energy, and ocean energy in two
For this scenario, timing is not right for developing renewable dimensions: importance (as a representation of the decision
energy industry. Specifically, the threat of global warming has values) and risk.
decreased and the international community will reduce the The importance of a technology was assessed on the basis of
requirement for environmental protection. Furthermore, renew- the following indicators: ‘‘market value in 2017’’, ‘‘compound
able energy technology does not have breakthrough, partly caused market growth rate from 2007 to 2017’’, ‘‘cost ratio to traditional
by a reduction in the funding for developing and promoting energy in 2017’’ and ‘‘percentage reduction in energy cost from
renewable energy technology. Moreover, the government does not 2007 to 2017’’. The first two indicators focus on the market value
of the technology, and the last two indicators focus on the cost
competitiveness of the technology. Measures for these indicators
Table 2 are summarized in Table 3.
Candidate scenarios. The risk of a technology from Taiwan’s perspective was
assessed on the basis of the following indicators: ‘‘technology
Scenarios Situation Breakthrough in Government First Second Final
position’’, ‘‘manufacture capability’’, ‘‘industrial supply chain’’,
of global renewable renewable round round scenarios
warming energy energy selecting selecting ‘‘market entry barriers’’, and ‘‘lead time for commercialization’’.
technology policy Here, the first three indicators focus on the risk in the
manufacturing, and the last two indicators focus on the risk in
A High High High O O O the markets. Measures for these indicators are summarized in
B High High Low X
C High Low High O O O
Table 4.
D High Low Low O It is important to note that these technology risk indicators are
E Low High High O specific to Taiwan and obtained from the discussions among 14
F Low High Low O O technology experts. They should not be used by other countries
G Low Low High X
without modifications, although the general contents may be
H Low Low Low O O O
useful as references to these other countries.

Table 3
Measures of technology importance indicators.

Indicators of technology importance High level Medium level Low level

Market value in 2017 (new Taiwan dollars) Over $50 billion $1050 billion Less than $10 billion
Compound market growth rate from 2007 to 2017 Over 20% 10–20% Less than 10%
Cost ratio to traditional energy in 2017 Less than 1.5 1.5–2.0 Larger than 2.0
Percentage cost reduction from 2007 to 2017 Larger than 10% 1–10% Less than 1%

Table 4
Measures of technology risk indicators.

Indicators of technology risk High level Medium level Low level

Position of technology
Manufacture capability
Industrial supply chain
Market entry barriers
Lead time for
commercializing
Domestic renewable energy technology
reaches international caliber.
Industry can produce on a large scale,
and the quality of outputs meets
international standards.
Industrial supply chain is well formed
from upstream to downstream.
Products get international recognition
and also successfully enter international
markets.
Within 3 years
Taiwan does not have the ability to
develop renewable energy technology,
but the technology can be acquired from
foreign countries.
The quality of outputs meets
international standards, but the capacity
does not reach the economy of scale.
There is a gap in the industrial supply
chain, but the raw materials and key
components are easy to acquire.
Products get international recognition,
but cannot enter international markets.
In 3–5 years
Taiwan does not have the ability to
develop renewable energy technology,
and it is not easy to acquire technology
from foreign countries.
Neither the capacity nor the quality of
outputs is sufficient.
There is a gap in the industrial supply
chain, but the raw materials and key
components are not easy to acquire.
Products cannot get international
regnition nor enter international
markets
More than 5 years
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2904 T.-Y. Chen et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2900–2906

Based on these indicators and their respective measures,
the assessment results and the technology portfolio planning
implications for each scenario are summarized graphically in
Figs. 2–4 and discussed below.
5.3. Technology portfolio planning implications for scenario A
(season in the sun)
For this scenario, the importance-risk assessment shown in
Fig. 2 indicates that crystal Si (P1) and solar heating water boiler
(S1) both enjoy high importance and low risk and are ideal for
private business development.
All other photovoltaic technologies except CdTe (P4), both on-
shore and off-shore wind energy technologies (w1 and w2), and
all bio-energy except anaerobic ferment (B2), together with ocean
thermal energy technology (T4) have lower importance or higher
risks. They may merit government investment to reduce risk and
increase importance.
The remaining technologies are currently not attractive to
Taiwan due to, for example, the low energy returns on input
(EROI) of some bio-energy (Kao and Hsu, 2006) or high

P1 W1
High

S1
P2
P6 P3 P5 W2
Importance

B4
Medium
B3 B1
P4 T3
T4

S3
B2 G1

LO T1
W3 S2
G2 T2

Low Medium High

Risk

Fig. 2. Technology assessment for scenario A (season in the sun). Code names of renewable energy technologies W1: On-shore wind energy; W2: Off-shore wind energy;
W3: Small wind turbine; G1: Geothermal energy; G2: Incremental geothermal energy; P1: Crystal si; P2: film of a-Si; P3: film of CIGS; P4: film of CdTe; P5: Organic dye; P6:
Concentration photovoltaic; S1 ¼ Solar heating water boiler; S2 ¼ Solar heating air condition; S3 ¼ Solar heating energy; B1: Biomass energy; B2: Anaerobic ferment; B3:
Biodiesel; B4: Bioethanol; T1: Wave energy; T2: Tide energy; T3: Ocean current energy; T4: Ocean Thermal Energy.

S1 W1
High

P1

P2
P6 P3 W2
Importance

B4
B3
Medium
B1

T4 P4 T3

S3
B2 P5 G1

Lo T1
W3 S2
G2 T2

Low Medium High

Risk

Fig. 3. Technology assessment for scenario C (more desire than energy). Code names of renewable energy technologies W1: On-shore wind energy; W2: Off-shore wind
energy; W3: Small wind turbine; G1: Geothermal energy; G2: Incremental geothermal energy; P1: Crystal si; P2: film of a-Si; P3: film of CIGS; P4: film of CdTe; P5: Organic
dye; P6: Concentration photovoltaic; S1 ¼ Solar heating water boiler; S2 ¼ Solar heating air condition; S3 ¼ Solar heating energy; B1: Biomass energy; B2: Anaerobic
ferment; B3: Biodiesel; B4: Bioethanol; T1: Wave energy; T2: Tide energy; T3: Ocean current energy; T4: Ocean Thermal Energy.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.-Y. Chen et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2900–2906
S1
High
P1
P2
Importance
P6
P3 B3
Medium
B2 P5 T4 G1
Lo
W3 S2
Low Medium
Risk
Fig. 4. Technology assessment for scenario H (castle in the air). Code names of
renewable energy technologies W1: On-shore wind energy; W2: Off-shore wind
energy; W3: Small wind turbine; G1: Geothermal energy; G2: Incremental
geothermal energy; P1: Crystal si; P2: film of a-Si; P3: film of CIGS; P4: film of
CdTe; P5:Organic dye; P6: Concentration photovoltaic; S1 ¼ Solar heating water
boiler; S2 ¼ Solar heating air condition; S3 ¼ Solar heating energy; B1: Biomass
energy; B2: Anaerobic ferment; B3: Biodiesel; B4: Bioethanol; T1: Wave energy;
T2: Tide energy; T3: Ocean current energy; T4: Ocean Thermal Energy.
development risks, for example, the limited availability of ocean
and geothermal energy in Taiwan. However, they still should be
constantly monitored in case of future increase in importance and
potential decrease in risk.
5.4. Technology portfolio planning implications for scenario C (more
desire than energy)
For this scenario, the importance-risk assessment shown in
Fig. 3 indicates that technical difficulties have greatly thinned out
renewable energy technology developments. Only the mature
technologies of solar heating water boiler and crystal Si still have
high importance and low risk and well positioned for private
business investments.
However, except for technically emerging CdTe and organic
dye, all other photovoltaic technology as well as on- and off-shore
wind energy and ocean thermal, energy technology are still
worthy of consideration by government investment for risk
reduction and importance improvement.
The increased demand for a balance between economic
development and energy protection in this scenario has greatly
increased the risk of bio-energy development, which directly
competes against food requirement (Weng, 2007a, b). Technical
challenges have also increased the risks of all remaining
technologies.
5.5. Technology portfolio planning in scenario H (castle in the air)
For this scenario, the importance-risk assessment indicates
that due to the reduced threat of global warming and the lack of
technical breakthrough, only the mature solar heating water
boiler, which has been developed since the 1980s, remains high-
importance and low-risk.
However, even with increased risks, the photovoltaic technol-
ogies with the exceptions of CdTe and organic dye still merit
government investment to reduce risk and improve importance.
All other remaining technologies are now not attractive as they
are either dependent on US and European developments or
2905
competing against oil and nuclear in importance and risk.
However, again, they should be constantly monitored for future
technological progress and improvement in importance.
W1
6. Conclusions
W2
B4
Based on the above results, this case study has derived the
B1
following general conclusions regarding the renewable energy
technology portfolio planning for Taiwan in the 2007 to 2017 time
P4 S3 T3
period.
T1 (1) The principal uncertainties in future Taiwan’s renewable
G2 T2 energy development are the threat of global warming, the
breakthrough of renewable energy technology and the
High government energy policy. To encompass these uncertainties,
the case study has developed an optimistic scenario (season in
the sun) and two pessimistic scenarios (more desire than
energy and castles in the air).
(2) Based on these scenarios, a robust renewable energy technol-
ogy portfolio plan appears to be as follows.
(a) In all cases, Taiwan should promote private business
investment in the mature technology of solar heating
water boiler.
(b) Dependent on the evolving development of future busi-
ness environment, Taiwan should either promote private
business investment or provide public investment or
develop international cooperation in crystal Si, film of a-
Si, film of CIGS, concentration photovoltaic, and possibly
organic dye technologies.
(c) Taiwan should consider public investments to reduce the
risks of on- and off-shore wind energy and possibly
selected bio-energy and ocean thermal energy develop-
ments.
(d) Taiwan should continuously monitor other renewable
energy technologies for possible technological break-
throughs as well as potential increase in importance due
to changes in the external business environment driven by
global warming and international oil price.
6.1. Limitations of the study
There are two potential limitations of the case study results:
(1) The Scenario Analysis Committee and the Technology Assess-
ment and Planning Committee consisted of different mem-
bers. Although there is the advantage of independent view
points, there may also be the disadvantage of inconsistencies
caused by different understanding of the scenarios and
knowledge of the technology details.
(2) Scenarios are highly affected by changes in technologies and
the business environment (Chen, 2003). In particular, energy
technologies and business environment have experienced and
will continue to encounter great changes due to the rapid
advances in information and material technologies as well as
the volatile political forces in the international energy scene
(e.g., international oil price was US$70 a barrel at the
beginning of the study in 2007 and had risen to over
US$100 a barrel just a few months later). With very limited
resources, the case study has the disadvantage of not being
able to be as comprehensive and timely in incorporating all
these uncertainties in the technology portfolio planning
process.
(3) Finally, the case study is necessarily country-specific. The
indicators, scenarios, and planning results are applicable to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2906 T.-Y. Chen et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2900–2906
Taiwan and cannot be readily transferred to other countries;
however, they can be useful references to these other
countries.
Based on these limitations as well as the importance of renewable
energy development to its future energy security and economic
competitiveness, Taiwan should provide additional resources to
develop, implement, and revise the technology portfolio plan with
sufficient details and review its impacts on a regular basis.
On the other hand, for the paper as a whole, the most
important contributions of are a clear description of the
systematic process of technology portfolio planning and scenario
analysis, a detailed demonstration their application through a
case study on the renewable energy development in Taiwan, and
the valuable results and insights gained from the application.
7. Epilogue
In 2007, First Solar in the US made both a technical and market
breakthroughs in the thin film CdTe solar cells. By following the
monitoring strategy presented in the Conclusions section, the
study would have effectively identified these breakthroughs and
increased this particularly technology (P4) to the high importance
and medium risk group.
Acknowledgements
We give thanks to Mr. Paul Wang and Miss Ju Chin Yu for their
helpful comments and project supported by Industrial Technology
Research Institute.
References
Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., 1995. Product development: past research, present
findings, and future direction. Academy of Management Review 20 (2), 343–378.
Chen, T.Y., 2005. Technology Management: Theory and Practice. Hwatai Book Co.,
Taipei, pp. 246–269 (in Chinese).
Chen, T.Y., Hsu, F.M., Sung, W.N., Liang, C.S., 2007. Investigate the Associated
Strategies for Realizing Regenerative Resource in Ten Years in Taiwan.
Industrial Technology Research Institute Technical Report, Hsinchu.
Chen, J.N., 2003. A research on relationship between scenario analysis and strategic
development of industry: TFT-LED industry as an example. Business Manage-
ment Review, Zhong Yuan University, Taiwan, pp. 80–87.
Chia, S.L., 1994. Environment, environmental right, environmental campaign and
environment protection campaign. Nuclear World 83 (8), 44.
Huss, W.R., Honton, E.J., 1987. Scenario planning: what style should you use. Long
Range Planning 20 (4), 21–29.
International Energy Agency, 2006. Renewable Energy: RD&D Priorities. IEA Press.
ITRI, 2007. Investigating Portfolio Strategies of Renewable Technology Industria-
lization for Taiwan for the Next Ten Years, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan.
Kao, I.V., Hsu, Z.C., 2006. Decrease carbon dioxide and make it gold. Global View
Monthly 255 (1), 234–278.
Linneman, R.E., Klein, H.E., 1983. The use of multiple scenarios by US industrial
companies. Long Range Planning 16 (6), 94–101.
Linneman, R.E., Klein, H.E., 1985. Using scenarios in strategic decision making.
Business Horizon 45 (1), 64–74.
Liu, S.P., 2002. Source of Structural Change in Energy Demand and Effect of Energy
Conservation Policy in Taiwan. International Trade Review, Zhong Yuan
University, Taiwan, pp. 1–15.
Maidique, A.M., Patch, P., 1988. Corporate Strategy Technology Policy. Mass Pitman
Publishing Inc., pp. 232–342.
Malaska, P., 1985. Multiple scenario approach and strategic behavior in European
companies. Strategic Management Journal 6, 339–355.
Porter, A.L., 1991. Forecasting and Management of Technology. Wiley, New York.
Porter, M.E., 1985. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for analyzing Industries and
Competitors. The Free Press, New York.
Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G., 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard
Business Review 79, 63–69.
Ringland, G., 1998. Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future. Wiley, London.
Schoemaker, P.J.H., Van der Heijden, H., 1992. Integrating scenarios into strategic
planning at royal Dutch/Shell. Planning Review 45 (5), 41–46.
Schoemaker, P.J.H., 1995. Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan
Management Review 40 (4), 25–39.
Schwartz, P., 1996. The Art of the Long View: planning for the Future in an
Uncertain World. Wiley, New York.
Shan, W., Walker, G., Kogut, B., 1994. Inter-firm cooperation and start-up
innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal 15,
387–394.
SRI, 1988, 1990, 1995, 1997, 1999. Proprietary project information.
SRI, 1996a. Overview of Scenario Technology Forecasting. SRI International Report,
Menlo Park, California.
SRI, 1996b. Integrated Technology Planning. SRI International Report, Menlo Park,
California.
SRI, 1996c. Scenario Technology Forecasting Workshop. SRI International Report,
Menlo Park, California.
STARS, 2006. Proprietary project information.
Steensam, H.H., 1996. Acquiring technological competencies through inter-
organization collaboration: an organizational learning perceptive. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management 12 (4), 267–286.
Wack, P., 1985a. Scenarios: uncharted water ahead. Harvard Business Review 63
(5), 72–89.
Wack, P., 1985b. Scenarios: shooting the rapids. Harvard Business Review 63 (6),
139–150.
Wang, K.M., Chan, Y.L., Lee, J.Y., 1997. Measurement the Economic Benefits of
Renewable Energy Power, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research,
Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese).
Weng, F.I., 2007a. Fill tanks, but starve stomach: an examination of bio-energy.
Energy Report 31, 31–33.
Weng, F.I., 2007b. The competition of rape and rice: an examination of bio-energy
plant. Energy Report 35, 23–26.
Wu, E.V., 2005. The State and Envision of Fossil Energy Supply in Taiwan. Industrial
Technology Intelligence Service & Promotion Project, Taipei, Taiwan
(in Chinese).
Yu, O., 2006. Technology Portfolio Planning and Management. Springer Publisher,
Berlin.
Yu, O., Hsu, J.Y., Chen, T.Y., 1998. Technology Forecasting and Management, Wu-Nan
Publishing Company, Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese).