The requirement for a firm to link technology resources to business goals is .... supporting and contributory activities provides the opportunity to build on planning.
Technology roadmapping: linking resources to strategic goals D.R. Probert, C.J.P. Farrukh and R. Phaal Department of Engineering, Institute for Manufacturing, Mill Lane, CB2 1RX University of Cambridge
Abstract As technological development increases in pace and complexity, it is ever more important for companies to understand the link between the technological resources at their disposal and the business goals they aim to achieve. The cost of bringing inappropriate technologies to market may destabilise an otherwise successful firm, and it is imperative to make the right choices at all stages of the product lifecycle. Technology roadmapping offers a means to explore this linkage, and together with supporting analysis, a powerful means to identify the key required technologies. However there has been no generally applicable approach to the technique available in the public domain, and individual company experience is fragmented and inaccessible. This paper describes a particular approach to technology roadmapping, which has been developed as part of a wider research project. The technique is intended to enable any organisation to assess the value of roadmapping in its own particular context. The lessons from the research cases are discussed, together with implications for wider application. Keywords: Technology management, roadmapping, strategic planning, innovation
1.
Introduction
The requirement for a firm to link technology resources to business goals is not a new feature of industrial life, but the accelerating progress of technological development has made this issue increasingly important. Traditionally, firms concerned with this problem have made use of a variety of strategic planning approaches, which have evolved over recent years. There are many general strategic analysis and formulation techniques that have been used, including Mintzberg’s views of strategy, Porter’s competitive forces analysis, and more recently resource-based or competence analysis. Such techniques, and many variations, although widely adopted, make little direct reference to technology in the firm [1] and provide minimal guidance for its analysis in a business context. In consequence, the technological arm of business planning has developed as a rather parallel discipline. These issues have been addressed in the domains of research and development (R&D) management, and more recently technology management. Typical approaches have been the lifecycle view of technology, R&D project selection, the definition of strategic technology areas, competitive impact of technology and technology strategy formulation techniques.
1
One consequence of this parallel development can be a divergence in thinking within the firm between groups of people primarily concerned with science and technology (researchers and engineers) and those concerned with the market development and exploitation (sales and marketing staff). Although this may not appear to be a serious problem, there are many examples in corporate history where the resulting imbalance between technology ‘push’and market ‘pull’ has resulted in business failure. There are of course also many other interest groups who have very important perspectives on the future evolution of the firm, and whose knowledge should similarly be included in a comprehensive approach to strategy formulation. This would include people working in manufacturing, purchasing, finance and human resources, and a balanced integration of all these perspectives drawing on knowledge from inside and outside the firm might be expected to result in a more robust plan for future development. In setting out to address this challenge, it is interesting to note that many contributions to solving the problem already exist. There is a variety of planning and analysis tools in use within companies [2], and consulting organisations offer many products aimed at integrated business planning. It is exactly this richness and variety that can cause difficulty within the firm. Which approach to adopt and how to make sure that the particular tools, techniques and methodologies being applied within a particular firm are in harmony with each other rather than in conflict? This is a serious issue, as conflicting approaches at best waste effort, and at worst produce damaging results. The research project on which this paper is based1 set out to develop a coherent approach to integrating technological considerations into business planning. Funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and in partnership with a number of leading technology-intensive companies, it also provided a conceptual framework for the approach. The purpose of the framework is to assist in overcoming the potential conflict of techniques within the firm, and to set the ideas in a common frame of reference. Early project work to review literature and practice in this field quickly identified technology roadmapping as a technique of potential interest for addressing these issues. As the practical difficulties of starting and maintaining the roadmapping process became apparent, further work explored and developed a rapidly applied version of the technique. This is intended for use by project teams within technology intensive businesses, as a means of developing their own technology roadmap.
2.
Technology roadmapping – what is it?
As with many such techniques, technology roadmapping first emerged in response to industrial need. Motorola was an early pioneer [3], with the method widely adopted within the company as a central part of the business planning process, and being extended to supply chain and industry-level application. The approach has subsequently been 1
Strategic technology management: linking technology resources to business objectives, EPSRC project GR/L62900, April 1998-July 2001.
2
adapted and applied within a number of other organisations, such as Philips [4] and Lucent Technologies [5]. In 1997 the European Industrial Research Association (EIRMA) set up a working party to explore the range of implementations that existed within its membership, and published a report summarising the fundamental process of roadmapping [6]. Applications have also included industry sector roadmaps, often as part of a national programme of technology foresight. Survey work by the Centre for Technology Management [2] indicates a good awareness of the technique amongst industrial companies, but a comparatively low level of adoption – perhaps geared to the apparent difficulty of starting the process and then embedding it in the procedures of the company. Those that have successfully adopted the techniques, report very positively about its value. Technology roadmapping is fundamentally a visualisation of the linkage between technologies and business and market conditions. A very important feature is the time axis, which indicates when particular conditions, events, targets, products and technologies are expected to appear. The scale of the time axis is entirely dependent on the industry conditions and the associated planning horizon. For example in the aerospace sector, planning horizons of twenty to fifty years are not uncommon, whereas in consumer electronics a five year horizon would be considered long term. Figure 1 illustrates the structure of a typical roadmap, comprising a layered chart that shows the linkage between technology, product (or service) and market. The top layer is generally used to represent the market and business drivers, including the purpose of the map (the conditions that have to be met or satisfied). These frequently take the form of trends or milestones, for example environmental legislation. The central layer charts the way these conditions are to be met, i.e. the products, services or capabilities that will be delivered over time. The content of this layer is very variable, depending on the nature of the business activity of the organisation being mapped. The lower layer(s) represent technology, and sometimes the resources, that are necessary to deliver the layer above. Choices usually have to be made about which are the important technologies to show on the map, and this requires the use of other prioritisation and selection tools. The map may also take a variety of particular forms, depending on the purpose for which it is being devised. These purposes can include product planning, critical resource identification, market opportunity exploration or simply to be a communication tool inside or outside the business. The roadmapping approach is very flexible, in terms of both the architecture of the roadmap (see Fig. 2) and the process that is adopted to develop the roadmap, which must typically be customised to suit the desired purpose. The value of the technique arises from both its finished form and the process to create it. The process of developing the map draws on many knowledge sources in a company, and usually some from outside, and there is a need during the process to agree on targets, trends and conditions. Very often a great deal of learning occurs between functional perspectives during this process, and the resulting consensus is important to the subsequent implementation of plans. The final map is a powerful communication tool, both within the company to demonstrate why a particular course of action is necessary, and also to the outside world, for example to shareholders.
3
The structure of the map can lend itself to ‘nesting’, where maps representing different activities, businesses or business units within a company, can be brought together and aggregated at a corporate level. By decomposing the map downwards, links to particular product or technology development project plans can be made. The appropriate use of software support can facilitate these linkages, and make it possible for individuals within the company to have access to relevant supporting data or subsets of the roadmap. The final roadmap is a living document, evolving as market conditions change and technological developments occur. The process to create it will reveal many gaps in knowledge, and the requirement for many supporting tools, techniques and data analysis. In advanced application contexts the roadmap may be supported by software tools to assist in the storage and maintenance of the associated data. The linking of these supporting and contributory activities provides the opportunity to build on planning processes already under way in the firm, and gives rise to the need for an integrating conceptual framework.
3.
The conceptual context of roadmapping
There are a number of perspectives and processes that need to come together in a conceptual framework to support technology roadmapping. The framework that has been developed [7] is illustrated graphically in Fig. 3 and comprises the following dimensions. The focus of interest is the firm, in the context of its environment. Within the firm, there are three primary business processes that occur, and to which technology roadmapping will need to relate. These are the strategy formulation, innovation and operations processes, as explained below: • Strategy formulation is the process of developing the overall future direction and plans for the business. The objectives of technology roadmapping are clearly central to this process. • Innovation is the process of ensuring a stream of new products, services, processes and supporting systems to sustain the business. Roadmapping will show when new products and services are expected to reach the market. • Operations is the process of getting current products and services to the market. Efficient operations are key to achieving customer satisfaction and in making economical use of resources. At the heart of the firm is its technology base, i.e. the stock of technology and technological knowledge that can be drawn on to develop, produce and support the current and future products and services of the firm. Previous work [8,9] has identified five technology management processes that operate on this technology base. These are the practical activities carried out by people in the firm in order to generate and exploit this key asset. The processes (collectively known by the summary of their initial letters as ISAEP) are:
4
• Identification of technologies that are not currently part of the base, but which might be relevant to current or future business. This involves scanning the environment for new and emerging technologies. • Selection of technologies that are required by the firm for business activities. Criteria and decision support are required here. • Acquisition of the selected technology so that it may be integrated into products and/or processes. Make-or-buy and develop-or-license are typical issues that arise in this context. • Exploitation of the technology base to yield a business benefit. This may be effected through the integration of technologies into products and services, but also by means of trading the technologies themselves. • Protection of the technology base so that loss of intellectual property is minimised. Patenting is just one method of achieving this; avoiding the loss of experienced and knowledgeable people from the business is another. Many people and functions within the firm have a part to play in the execution of these processes, and unless a comprehensive and coherent approach to carrying them out is adopted, it is unlikely that the full value of the technology assets be realised. The framework aims to link the technological and commercial perspectives within the firm, with the processes providing the means for individuals with different knowledge to engage and combine their particular areas of expertise. This will result in knowledge flows between the different perspectives, identified in the framework as push mechanisms (capabilities) from the technological perspective, and pull mechanisms (requirements) from the commercial or market perspective. These technology management processes are often not explicit in the firm, and there is a risk that some aspects of the five processes may be overlooked. The strategy, innovation and operations processes are however usually more obvious, and can be the basis of checking the comprehensive presence of the ISAEP processes. Previous work [10] has explored the means of identifying the ISAEP processes at work embedded in the firm. The whole framework provides a means of showing the linkage between all these processes and perspectives in the firm, and can be the basis for an assessment of their integration and full implementation.
4.
Development of the fast-start technology roadmapping process
There are a number of research approaches that could be adopted in order to investigate the planning issues confronting technology intensive businesses. Literature review, case study and survey work can (and do) all provide useful insights into the existing experience that companies have in this area. From this, some summary of good practice is possible, together with limited recommendations for an approach to be adopted by newcomers to the field. The limitations concern the variability of conditions that need to be addressed in order to make generally applicable recommendations, and the paucity of
5
information available concerning the early experience of organisations starting to roadmap – an acknowledged area of difficulty. Further, the research aim of achieving the practical applicability of emerging new ideas while integrating them within a conceptual framework and linking to other theoretical views of the firm, places further demands on the research approach. The action research methodology [11,12] has a number of advantages in the development of a practical approach to managerial decision processes such as those at the heart of technology roadmapping. Action research engages the researcher in a joint problemsolving project with a collaborating organisation. It builds both on existing available knowledge, and captures the experience and learning of the project itself. Researchers at the Institute for Manufacturing at the University of Cambridge have considerable experience in the use of this approach, and have applied it in a number of areas of practical decision support [13]. It was adopted in this project, together with a number of other research techniques, for several reasons. As discussed above, there were already a number of approaches to technology roadmapping in existence. In particular the EIRMA work had indicated a generic methodology, which although underdeveloped and untested, could form the basis of an exploratory research tool. Further, survey work by the Centre for Technology Management [2] had revealed a number of problems that had been experienced by companies and individuals in attempting roadmapping. In particular these related to the difficulty of starting the roadmapping process, and then of maintaining it i.e. embedding it routinely in the business planning process of the company. There were indications that the start up difficulties concerned the time and effort needed to derive the first roadmap, compounded by the lack of process guidance available. The research project set out to address this start-up issue, on the grounds that once this had been made easier, the probability of longer-term continuity would be improved, and in any event could later be addressed. The choice of partner organisations within which to conduct the project is a central issue in action research. The aim is to achieve a good variation of contextual conditions, covering size of company, industrial sector and business purpose. Furthermore, the benefit to the host organisation varies through the life of the research project. Early applications are exploratory or developmental and require the host organisation to accept a lower utility of outcome, whereas towards the end of the research project there is much more certainty of a useful outcome. During this research project a total of 20 separate applications of the developing approach to technology roadmapping were made in 10 different host organisations. In some cases, where the approach was applied more than once in the same organisation, a different business unit was selected to provide a change of context or a different business problem as the focus for the roadmap. The range of stages that the emerging approach passed through can be classified as follows: • Exploratory, to make an initial assessment of the scope and practicality of the first ideas for a roadmapping approach in a particular company context.
6
• Developmental, to create and refine the approach and its supporting techniques in a range of company contexts. • Testing, to explore the effect of varying contextual conditions on the practical applicability of the approach and to capture this in a facilitator’s guide. The full range of applications is shown in Table 1. The approach has been found to be applicable in a variety of industrial sectors including automotive subsystems, railway infrastructure, instrumentation, software, postal services, process plant and power transmission. Since the completion of the research project the approach has been further applied in a number of other organisations and sectors including aerospace, automotive, drug delivery devices, together with sector-level research consortia. Given the variation in business context and business problem acting as the focus for the roadmap, a certain amount of customisation of the basic approach is necessary. This adaptability appears to be a real strength of the approach. It allows and encourages the user organisation to take ownership of the approach and make sure that it suits its own purpose.
5.
Summary of the fast-start technology roadmapping process (T-Plan)
The approach to technology roadmapping that has been developed as a result of this research project has been captured in a guidebook to support its further application. The approach has been named ‘T-Plan’ and the guidebook is called “T-Plan: the Fast Start to Technology Roadmapping – planning your route to success” [14]. Overall the purpose of T-Plan is to: • Support the start-up of company-specific TRM processes • Establish key linkages between technology resources and business drivers • Identify important gaps in market, product and technology intelligence • Develop a ‘first-cut’technology roadmap • Support technology strategy and planning initiatives in the firm • Support communication between technical and commercial functions The majority of technology roadmapping applications are in support of product planning. Current and future products and product platforms are shown in the central layer of the map. In most cases, this is the interest that organisations have when they first attempt technology roadmapping, and this was the original purpose of the T-Plan process as it was first developed [15]. However as the research proceeded it became apparent that the process could be adapted for many varying business purposes, and in particular could usefully be applied within organisations having no conventional manufactured ‘product’. This additional experience has also been documented and forms the second part of the guidebook. The whole T-Plan process is thus presented in two parts. T-Plan Part 1: Standard Process (Product Planning) The standard process is accomplished in a series of four facilitated workshops, which draw on a range of knowledge and experience from within the business. An important
7
aspect of the process in terms of establishing consensus about business direction and securing commitment to follow-up actions, is the contribution from, and communication with, different business functions and departments. The first three workshops address each layer of the roadmap successively (market and business drivers, products, and technology). For a product planning application, the timescale of the roadmap will typically span 2 or 3 product generations, although this is not a firm rule and may be adapted to the local business requirement. The final workshop integrates the outputs of the first three and results in a first-cut roadmap. The overall process is shown in Fig. 4. There are parallel actions to set up, and manage the process, also to arrange follow up activities. Particular emphasis is placed on preparation for the workshops, including choosing and briefing the participants. In many cases, there will be gaps in knowledge that are identified during the workshops, and this additional information may be gathered from internal or external sources prior to the final workshop. Much information may be generated during a workshop session, and techniques are used to identify, categorise, prioritise and link this information between the layers. The overall elapsed time to carry out the four workshops can be varied, depending on the availability of the participants and necessary information. In its shortest form the process has been carried out over two days. This produced a rough first-cut roadmap, but required considerable follow-up work to check and complete the information which participants had provided to the best of their current knowledge. T-Plan Part 2: Customising the Process In addition to product planning, roadmapping can support a variety of other business aims. These include the exploration of new opportunities, resource allocation, the development of business strategy and planning. The organisational context of roadmapping is also very variable, for example in terms of the culture of the organisation (e.g. willingness of people to get involved in something new), the level of management support given to the process, and the rate of change within the relevant industry sector. In order to secure the best possible match between the roadmapping exercise and the business objective, some degree of customisation is advisable. This customisation is carried out by adapting not only the form of the roadmap itself, but also the roadmapping process itself. The preparation and planning phase for the roadmapping process is the most important for determining and preparing any necessary customisation. In principle the process should seek to build on other business processes that exist in the firm, in order minimise the requirement for additional data. A process that builds on currently available information and activities will place least burden on the organisation and have the best chance of enduring. Consideration should be given to the prime purpose of the roadmap. For any high level objective concerning strategic change, senior level involvement and support will be necessary. A business champion, or owner for the process, is an important factor in ensuring a successful outcome.
8
Having determined the objective, the main planning task is to organise the workshop sequence, timing and constituents. This should reflect not only the ability to provide appropriate information, but also the need to secure commitment and involvement in implementing any resulting change programme. Facilitation of the process is another important aspect, and should not be confused with ownership of the process. The facilitator is a person familiar with the roadmapping process, who is able ensure that it is followed appropriately while taking a neutral role in the discussions and debate. The format of the roadmap is another key area of customisation, and should be largely determined during the planning process. It will be conditioned largely by the purpose, but may also evolve in the light of information that emerges during the workshops. The main features of the format which require customisation are as follows: Time: this dimension will reflect both the business purpose of the roadmap and the industry conditions of the context. It is usually the case that more detailed information is available to be plotted in the short and medium term areas of the map than in the long term, and it is useful to scale the time axis accordingly. This can take the form of a logarithmic scale that compresses the long term. Layers: this is the most critical aspect of customisation, and may require some iteration before the most appropriate sequence of layers is determined. The top layer always relates to purpose, and includes the drivers and requirements that have to be met. The bottom layer relates to resources, and in particular technological resources. It may be useful to have one layer below technology, in order to be able to show the skills or other resources that support the technology. In many cases this becomes important in the long term, when new capabilities need to be acquired in order to work with emerging technologies. The central layer of the roadmap is the bridge between capability and requirement, and shows how the capability (or technology) is to be delivered. This is the product for a conventional product planning roadmap, but for other business purposes the central layer may depict a service activity or a key business process. It is frequently necessary to have sub-layers in order to provide sufficiently detailed information on the roadmap – these sub-layers fit within the three principle layers of the generic format. The requirement for this additional detail is much influenced by the purpose of the roadmap, and it may be that differing representations of the same fundamental roadmap are appropriate in order to communicate effectively with different groups of people. For example the information required by project engineers will be quite different from that useful to senior management or shareholders, although it could all be drawn from the same fundamental roadmap. Figure 2 shows a range of different approaches that have been taken for structuring roadmap layers and sub-layers. Supporting information: in addition to the information shown on the map, there is usually much other data and supporting analysis that is required. The linkage between the layers is critical in identifying the path that the organisation should attempt to follow. Simple analysis grids have been developed to help project participants group and prioritise factors relevant to each layer in order to establish this connection. The exercise of
9
producing the first roadmap frequently identifies much missing information, and the need for further data gathering and analysis. As part of the research project, a large number of possible analytical techniques have been assembled and categorised according to their purpose. This collection is in the form of a catalogue, and is known as T-Cat [16]. As described earlier, a good roadmapping process will build on strategic planning routines and data that already exist in the firm, supplementing them where necessary with the workshops activities of T-Plan and selected analytical tools from T-Cat.
6.
Continuing the roadmapping process
As mentioned earlier, the main challenge, having begun the roadmapping process, is to keep it going. The first application benefits from the stimulus of novelty, and the possibility of revealing something of great significance for the future of the business. This perceived benefit may also help to prompt subsequent applications, but in order for the best return on effort to be achieved, the roadmapping process needs to become embedded in the strategic planning cycle of the company. This has been achieved in companies such as Motorola, where roadmaps take a central place in planning and communication processes. In order to help with maintaining data and to give easy access to the roadmap information, some companies also use software tools to support the process2. These can assist by using common data to present roadmaps in varying formats, in order to present information appropriate to user, for example the project engineer or the marketing manager. Such supporting tools reduce the effort to produce and maintain the roadmaps while making the results more accessible and useful. This helps to ensure their continuity. Software support may also help with the issue of standardisation of format in a multibusiness unit company. There is often a tension between individual businesses wishing to use a format most suited to their own business context, and the corporate desire to aggregate roadmaps across business units. The provision of a standard format that is supported by software will help encourage individual business not to reinvent the wheel and make use of something that is already available.
7.
Extended uses of roadmapping
The discussion so far has concentrated on the use of roadmapping in the company context, and primarily for the purposes of determining how to reach a business goal set by market drivers. The purpose of this kind of application is usually product planning. However there are two other principal applications that should be recognised.
2
While simple graphical and project management software can be used to support technology roadmapping, such systems can only provide a partial solution, and special purpose programs have been developed to fill this gap (Geneva Vision Strategist developed by The Learning Trust, www.learningtrust.com, and Graphical Modeling System developed by the US Office of Naval Research, www.onr.navy.mil/gms/gma.asp).
10
a) Technology push The purpose of these roadmaps is to explore where technological development might open up new business and market opportunity. It is divergent and exploratory in comparison with the applications already discussed, which focus on reaching a goal. In the company context this type of roadmapping occurs less frequently, but is nevertheless a valuable exercise. It can encourage creative thinking and help to generate new areas of business. In practice the ideas that constitute a technology push roadmap may well originate during the more conventional product planning (market pull) roadmap. If not actively recorded for later use, there is a danger that these potentially useful (but not immediately relevant) ideas could be discarded. By keeping a note of them, the ideas can be used later for a market push roadmap when time is available for rather more openended thinking. b) Sectoral roadmapping This form of roadmapping has been much applied in national foresight programmes, particularly in the USA, for example in the semiconductor industry [17]. Since the completion of this research project, the Centre for Technology Management has been involved in applying the T-Plan approach in the UK Vehicle Foresight programme [18]. This has brought together experts from various areas in the road transport industry to map out the possible evolution of technologies, products, market and environmental conditions over the next 20 years. Such roadmaps represent the collective knowledge of many specialists, drawn from companies, government departments, universities and other research organisations. Their purpose is more to inform policy debate rather than to guide individual firm decision making, however being part of the roadmapping process is in itself useful to participating companies. The T-Plan process, in its customised form, has been found to be adaptable to the sectoral foresight application.
8.
Discussion, examples and continuing uses of roadmapping
From the experience of this research project, there is little doubt that technology roadmapping is an attractive and useful technique. Investigation prior to the project had identified its potential value, and work since the project has confirmed the continuing, and even increasing, interest in the subject. Members of the project team at the Centre for Technology Management are involved in a number of ongoing roadmapping activities. These include a TRM User Group, the facilitation of specific in-company and government applications of T-Plan, and dialogue with other roadmapping communities around the world3.
3
GATIC (www.tim.ethz.ch/gatic), MATI (mati.ncms.org), The Learning Trust (www.learningtrust.com), Purdue University Centre for Technology Roadmapping (roadmap.ecn.purdue.edu/CTR), TRM User Group (www-mmd.eng.cam.ac.uk/ctm/trmug).
11
Whilst the approach developed during the research project was extensively tested and has been found to be widely applicable, its ongoing application is a continuing learning process. New possibilities for its use continue to arise, and the exchange of experience between practitioners is a very valuable process. Key decision points in the creation of a roadmap concern how much information to portray, and particularly which technologies to chart. These decisions are supported by the data gathering and analysis that accompanies the roadmapping process. However one of the strengths of roadmapping is the ability to represent different views of the future, for example by linking it to scenario development [19]. In this way the implications for technology investment and development can be discussed in the light of different future market and societal conditions. The T-Plan approach has been applied more than 35 times in a wide range of situations, in terms of sector, technology, size and strategic context. These applications can be grouped into the following six broad types, illustrated in Fig. 5, which highlight the flexibility of the approach [14,20]: a) Strategic appraisal: The roadmap template is used to capture, structure and share knowledge about the area of interest. This provides a resource for identifying and assessing strategic issues, leading to agreement on appropriate actions. The majority of T-Plan applications have been of this type. b) Business reconfiguration: The roadmap template is used to explore the implications of a particular strategic vision, and to assess the current position. The migration paths that bridge the gap between the current position and future vision are then explored. c) Product-technology planning: The roadmap is used to develop an integrated producttechnology plan that meets the requirements of both the market and business, with the product feature and technology choices prioritised on the basis of customer needs and desires. d) Process development: The roadmap template is used to explore the flow of knowledge between commercial and technical functions, focused on improving and developing business processes, such as new product development. e) Research network development: The roadmap template is used to capture, structure and share knowledge from both the commercial and technical perspectives, and then to identify future application requirements and opportunities, together current research and network priorities. f) Sector foresight: The roadmap template is used to capture, structure and share knowledge about industry and market trends and drivers, which are then used to define performance measures and targets for the system. Future technology evolution is then explored, and research challenges identified.
12
While it is possible to broadly group roadmapping applications in this way, specific applications can differ considerably, and in most the roadmap architecture and the process for developing the roadmap will need to be customised to a greater or lesser extent. This versatility of roadmapping is likely to ensure continuing interest in the technique, particularly as it becomes more widely known and available. However there is a danger that it could come to be seen as a panacea – and there are some caveats about its use that should be discussed. • Information and data quality. As with all such planning processes, the result is only as good as the data that was used during the process. Clearly this presents risks in terms of acting on the results of roadmapping, but it is not a reason for not attempting the process. Weaknesses and gaps in available data will emerge during the process, enabling sources to be challenged and improved data to be sought. • Time and effort. By making use of a project team approach, considerable man-hours may be consumed by the roadmapping process. This should be estimated at the planning stage, and the resource justified (or not) in terms of the likely outcome for the business. • Ownership of the business problem. While many applications of technology roadmapping arise from the technologist and engineer’s wish to become more effectively integrated into business planning, this is not a sufficient reason for effective roadmapping. There is a danger that the technique will be seen as a technologist plaything unless a clear business purpose and business problem owner is established which spans the whole business. If this issue is a block to progress, it may be politic to describe the activity as ‘roadmapping’ rather than ‘technology roadmapping’. • Customising the roadmapping approach: The flexibility of the roadmapping approach means that it must typically be customised to fit the particular context where it is being applied. The roadmap architecture must be designed to provide a framework for structuring relevant knowledge (see Fig. 2), together with the process for developing the roadmap. The capabilities of the roadmapping approach must be matched with the business issues being addressed, achieved through a collaborative and iterative design activity. This can be complex, and lack of widespread roadmapping expertise in industry is a barrier to its adoption.
9.
Conclusions
The technology roadmapping approach, developed originally by Motorola [3], has become one of the more widely used methods for supporting the strategic management of technology, at both the company and sector levels. The approach is very flexible, in terms of the architecture of the roadmap, and also the process that is used to develop the
13
roadmap, which has enabled the method to be adapted to many different situations. The variety of applications can be readily demonstrated with an Internet search for ‘technology roadmapping’. The research described in this paper has made a significant contribution to expanding the application of the technology roadmapping approach, in terms of development of: • The T-Plan ‘fast-start’ process for initiation of technology roadmapping, which has been tested in a wide range of industrial contexts. • A ‘technology management’ framework, providing a bridge between practice and theory, and a conceptual basis for technology roadmapping. • The T-Cat management tool catalogue, containing more than 850 management tools and frameworks of the ‘matrix’ type, covering all aspects of management, which is intended as a resource to support roadmapping and other business processes [16]. However, further research is needed in the following areas: 1. A key strength of the roadmapping approach is its flexibility, although exploiting this depends crucially on being able to customise both the architecture of the roadmap and the process for developing it. However, the ‘design rules’ for roadmapping are not well understood, in terms of linking the structure and ‘logic’ of the roadmap to the application context. The degree to which this can be formalised is not clear, although the benefits would be significant in terms of enabling improved guidance and software tools for supporting roadmapping. 2. Other challenges that relate to the continuity of roadmapping rather than the start-up and which need to be addressed if technology roadmapping is to be more widely applied include: • Maintenance – keeping the roadmap content up-to-date and sustaining the roadmapping process. • Roll-out – extending the use of roadmapping within the organisation. • Software – specifying and applying IT solutions to support roadmapping activity. • Integration – linking roadmapping to other systems and processes within the firm. Industrial and academic interest in the technology roadmapping approach is increasing, and activities are continuing on a number of fronts: • Application of the T-Plan approach in different contexts, including consortia-based sector-level applications, such as the UK Foresight Vehicle Technology Roadmap [18] and UK Faraday Partnerships. • Applied research to address some of the challenges listed above, together with using the technology roadmapping approach as a research instrument to address other technology management issues. • Development of resources to support these activities, including a compendium of application case examples, and networks of practitioners and academics interested in the roadmapping approach.
14
10. References
1. Tschirky, H. (1998): Lücke zwischen Management-Theorie und Technologie-Realität. In: Tschirky, H./Koruna, St. (Hrsg.): Technologie-Management - Idee und Praxis. Zürich: Verlag Industrielle Organisation. 2. Phaal, R. and Farrukh, C.J.P. (2000), ‘Technology Planning Survey - Results’, Project Report, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge. 3. Willyard, C.H. and McClees, C.W. (1987), 'Motorola's technology roadmap process', Research Management, Sept.-Oct., pp. 13-19. 4. Groenveld, P. (1997), 'Roadmapping integrates business and technology', ResearchTechnology Management, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 48-55. 5. Kappel, T. (2001), ‘Perspectives on roadmaps: how organizations talk about the future’, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.18, pp. 39-50 6. EIRMA (1997), ‘Technology roadmapping: delivering business vision’, Working Group Report No. 52, European Industrial Research Association, Paris.
7. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2001b), ‘A framework for supporting the management of technological innovation’, Proceeding of the Future of Innovation Studies Conference (ECIS), Eindhoven, 20-23rd September 2001. 8. Gregory, M.J. (1995), Technology management: a process approach, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 209, pp. 347-356. 9. Probert, D.R., Phaal, R. and Farrukh, C.J.P. (2000), ‘Development of a structured approach to assessing technology management practice’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 214, pp. 313 – 321. 10. Farrukh, C.J.P., Phaal. R. and Probert, D.R. (2000), ‘Technology management assessment procedure: a guide for supporting Technology Management in business’, The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, UK. 11. Maslen, R. and Lewis, M.A. (1994a), 'Procedural action research', Working paper, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge. 12. Maslen, R. and Lewis, M.A. (1994b), 'A conceptual framework for developing and testing strategic processes', Proceedings of the British Academy of Management Conference, Lancaster UK, September 1994. 13. Platts, K.W. (1993), 'A process approach to researching manufacturing strategy', International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol 13, No 8. 14. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2001d), T-Plan: fast start to technology roadmapping - planning your route to success, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge. 15. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2001a), ‘Fast-start technology roadmapping’, Management of technology: the key to prosperity in the third millennium, Selected Papers from the 9th International Conference on Management of Technology (IAMOT), Pergamon, Elsevier Science. 16. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2000), 'Tools for technology management - structure, organisation and integration', Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), 1215th November, Singapore. 17. Kostoff, R.N. and Shaller, R.R. (2001), Science and Technology Roadmaps, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol.48, No.2, pp. 132-143 15
18. Phaal, R. (2002), Foresight Vehicle technology roadmap – technology and research directions for future road vehicles, Department of Trade and Industry URN 02/933. 19. Strauss, J., Radnor, M. and Peterson, J. (1998), ‘Plotting and navigating a non-linear roadmap’, East Asian Conference on Knowledge Creation Management in Singapore, March 1998. 20. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2001c), 'Characterisation of technology roadmaps: purpose and format', Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Portland, 29th July - 2nd August, pp. 367-374.
Table 1: T-Plan development applications
16
Company ID
Product / sector
Company A
Postal services
Company B
Industrial coding systems
Company C
Security / access systems Software
Company D
Company E
Surface coatings
Company F
Power transmission & distribution Railway infrastructure
Company G
Aims
Integration of research & technology into the business; research planning; business planning Integration of technology into the business and product planning process Support product strategy and planning Product planning for niche market opportunity Support development of a new product Exploration of business opportunity for new technologies Capital investment and technology insertion planning in two technical areas Develop business case and action plan for technical service opportunity
Company H
Automotive sub-systems
Company I
Medical packaging
Explore new business model
Company J
Building controls
Explore new business model
Overall success (6 months +)
Turnover (£ millions)
Employees
Company > 1,000
Business Unit -
Company > 20,000
Business Unit -
1001,000
100-500
1-5,000
25-100 1,000
> 500
> 20,000
> 5,000
-
-
5,000 20,000
1-5,000
>1,000
10-100
> 20,000
250-500
10-100
-
5001,000
-
>1,000
10-100
> 5,000
250-500
Nine roadmaps completed in total; follow-on activity reported; outputs used for research planning Repeat application in two BUs & rolled out in another; refinement of product planning Data not available
17
Figure 1: Typical technology roadmap structure, adapted from EIRMA (1997)
Time M1
Market
P1
Product
Resources
P2
P3 P4
T1
Technology
R&D programmes
M2
T2 T3
RD 1
RD 2
T4 RD 4
RD 3
RD 6 RD 5
Capital investment / finance Supply chain Staff / skills
18
Figure 2: Generalised technology roadmap architecture
Layers connect: Past
Now
Plans
Future
(know-when)
Market / Customers / Competitors / Environment / Industry / Business / Trends / Drivers / Threats / Objectives / Milestones / Strategy
Ma rke tP ull
‘purpose’ (know-why)
Tec hno log yp ush
Products / Services / Applications / Services / Capabilities / Performance / Features / Components / Families / Processes / Systems / Platforms / Opportunities / Requirements / Risks
Technology / Competences / Knowledge
Vision T im e
Other resources: Skills / Partnerships / Suppliers / Facilities / Infrastructure / Organisation / Standards / Science / Finance / R&D Projects
19
‘delivery’ (know-what)
‘resources’ (know-how)
Figure 3: Technology management framework
Environment Organisation
Commercial perspective
I Strategy Push mechanisms - capabilities (knowledge flows)
P
Innovation
Technology base
S
Operations
A
E
Technological perspective
20
Pull mechanisms - requirements (knowledge flows)
Figure 4: T-Plan fast-start technology roadmapping process
Planning
Standard process
Roadmapping workshops Standard process
Workshop 1 Market
Workshop 2 Product
Workshop 3 Technology
Workshop 4 Roadmapping
•Product feature concepts •Grouping •Impact ranking •Product strategy •Gaps
•Technology solutions •Grouping •Impact ranking •Gaps
Customised process
•Performance dimensions •Market / business drivers •Prioritisation •SWOT •Gaps
•Linking technology resources to future market opportunities •Gaps
• Setting up the process
• Managing the process
Roll-out
21
• Following on from the process
Figure 5: Example customised roadmaps (schematic)
Time Market / Business Capture, structure & share knowledge Strategic review
Product / Service Technology
Other
Gap Migration path
Organisation
b) Business reconfiguration
a) Strategic appraisal Time Market / Business Product / Service
Vision
Technology
Market / Business Current position
Product / Service
Time
Time Knowledge flows
Customer needs, targets
Commercial
Functionality, performance Business process
Technology Other
Development, research Technical
Resources, infrastructure
Knowledge flows
c) Product-technology planning
d) Process development
Time Industry
Map knowledge
Time Industry / market
Trends & drivers
Requirements Applications
> Research challenges
System
Performance measures & targets
Capabilities Technology
Map knowledge
Technology
Technology evolution & research challenges
f) Sector foresight
e) Research network development
22
