Revised 6th October 1999 – for IAMOT 2000 (Track 8)

Fast-Start Technology Roadmapping

By:R Phaal, CJP Farrukh and DR Probert

Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, CB2 1RX, UK

Abstract

Technology is an important strategic asset for many firms, and there is an increasing need to include technological considerations in strategy and planning processes. However, establishing and communicating the linkages between technology resources and company objectives presents a continuing challenge for many organisations. Technology roadmapping is a technique that has the potential to support technology strategy and planning. Such maps can take various specific forms, but generally comprise a time-based chart linking technology developments to future product and market requirements. The method has been successfully applied in a number of industrial contexts; however, initiating and maintaining the method on an ongoing basis can be difficult.

This paper describes the development and application of a process for supporting the rapid initiation of technology roadmapping in manufacturing firms. The 'start-up' process comprises a series of facilitated workshops that bring together various functions in the business, including technology and marketing. The process supports understanding and communication of the relationships between market and business requirements, product and service concepts, and technological solutions. The approach encourages learning and staff involvement, and identifies key knowledge gaps, enabling a company-specific roadmapping process to be initiated quickly. In addition, theoretical aspects of technology roadmapping are discussed, in the context of managing technological knowledge.

Keywords:Technology roadmapping; technology planning; technology strategy.

1.Introduction

The effective integration of technological considerations into business strategy is a key aspect of business planning. Many companies are increasingly aware of the strategic importance of technology in delivering value and competitive advantage. These issues are becoming more important as the cost, complexity and rate of technology change increase, together with the globalisation of competition and technological sources.

The essence of business strategy and planning is concerned with aligning the activities and resources of the firm in such a way as to generate a sustainable competitive position in the market place. This requires a sound understanding of the nature of the changing business environment in the medium to long term (i.e. markets, customers, competition and regulation), in terms of external opportunities and threats, together with the internal strengths and weaknesses of the organisation. Technology considerations impact on both external and internal aspects of strategy, in terms of the sources of new technology and the strength of competitors' technology, together with the value of technology as a resource within the firm, providing the capability to develop and deliver products and services. In this context, technology strategy should be considered as an integral part of business strategy and planning, rather than as a separate process (e.g. Floyd, 1997, Matthews, 1992 and Metz, 1996).

2.A framework for technology planning

There are many published definitions of technology (e.g. Floyd 1997, Whipp 19991, Steele 1989). Examination of these definitions highlights a number of factors that characterise technology, which can be considered as a specific type of knowledge. The characteristics of technology which distinguish it from more general knowledge types are that it is 'action-oriented' and focuses on the 'know-how' of the organisation. While technology is often associated with science and engineering ('hard' technology), the processes which enable its effective application are also important, for example new product and innovation processes, together with organisational structures and supporting communication / knowledge networks ('soft' aspects of technology).

Technology can be best considered in the business context as an important type of resource, and hence there are considerable linkages with other resource-based views of the firm (e.g. Grant, 1991), such as competence (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994) and capability approaches (Teece et al., 1997). A key objective of technology management is to ensure that technological resources are well linked to business requirements. Temporal aspects are crucial for technology planning, both in terms of internal cycles within the firm (e.g. strategy, budgeting, planning and new product development cycles), as well as external factors (e.g. competitor activity, changes in the market, and technological developments).

A framework has been developed (Fig. 1) which brings together knowledge and resource based concepts, drawing on work by Andreasen and Hein (1987). This framework addresses the area of technology planning and comprises three 'levels':

  • Business level: the organisation and associated networks, business portfolio, marketing and financial functions, together with strategy development and implementation processes required to deliver value to the business into the future (e.g. Mintzberg, 1994).
  • Product level: the product and service portfolio and platforms, manufacturing and operations functions, together with innovation and new product development and introduction processes (e.g. Twiss, 1986; Kline, 1991).
  • Technology level: the technology, engineering and science skills and platforms of the firm, together with technology management processes required for maintaining the technology base (i.e. identification, selection, acquisition, exploitation and protection of technology, Gregory, 1995).

Effective alignment of technology with business objectives requires effective mechanisms for knowledge flow between the levels, in terms of 'pull' to ensure that business and market requirements are understood at the product and technology levels, and 'push' to ensure that technological capabilities are understood at the product and business levels. Effective technology management requires an appropriate balance between market/product pull and product/technology push. Knowledge management concepts are important in this context, such as organisational learning, explicit and tacit knowledge (Nonaka, 1991), together with 'dimensions' of knowledge, such as 'know-why', 'know-what', 'know-how', 'know-who' and 'know-when' (Chai et al., 1999), which are reflected in the framework.


Fig. 1 - Technology planning framework

Various types of mechanisms can support knowledge flows and learning across levels, including multidisciplinary teams, staff mobility, communication systems, business processes and management tools. Examples of such tools include technology roadmapping, together with portfolio approaches (e.g. Cooper et al., 1997), technology valuation methods (e.g. Hartmann, 1998) and quality function deployment (e.g. Martinich, 1997). The potential competitive advantage of technological resources can only be fully realised if the knowledge flows between the levels are efficient and effective, creating a technological capability (i.e. "A capability is the capacity of a team of resources to perform some task or activity", Grant, 1991).

3. The technology roadmapping process

The technology roadmap (TRM) approach is closely related to the framework described above, as technology, product and market levels, and the time dimension are primary components. Technology roadmapping can facilitate supporting and communicating technology strategy and planning. Roadmaps (or route maps) can take a variety of specific forms, depending on the particular company context (Barker and Smith, 1995; Willard and McClees, 1987; Groenveld, 1997), but generally comprise a number of 'levels' on a time-based chart (see Fig. 2). Specific technology programmes or developments are shown on the map, linked to future products and services, and then to market or business opportunities.


Fig. 2 - Technology Roadmap (TRM) - schematic

Technology roadmaps have been applied successfully in a number of industrial organisations. An eight stage ‘TRM-project process’ has been documented (EIRMA, 1997) based on the experiences of a group of European companies. Meanwhile, a group of US industrialists and academics propose a three phase generic roadmapping process (Strauss et al., 1998). Both groups indicate that the development of an effective roadmapping process within a business is reliant on significant vision and commitment for what is an iterative, and initially exploratory, process. Recent industrial workshops[1] in the UK indicate that key practical challenges include:

  • Selling the concept – benefits of the TRM process
  • Initiating the TRM process – how to get started
  • Defining the scope of the TRM process – aims and resources
  • Integrating the TRM process into existing business processes and systems
  • Maintaining the TRM process on an ongoing basis

Reviews of literature and practice indicate that there is presently no easy way for a company to address these challenges. However, the preliminary results of a survey1 of UK technical directors have revealed that 30% of respondents are actively seeking ways to improve technology planning using TRM. To fill this gap a detailed process is being developed to support the rapid initiation of technology roadmapping. This 'start-up' process comprises a series of four facilitated workshops that bring together various functions in the business, including technical and marketing. The process has been designed cover the key elements of technology roadmapping in a condensed time frame, to provide a quick overview of the potential benefits of the technique.

The research approach being used to develop the TRM start-up process is described in Section 4. The process is detailed in Section 5 and the results of the applications are given in Section 6.

4. Research methodology

The development of the TRM start-up process has been undertaken in the context of a 'procedural action' research framework, as set out by Maslen and Lewis (1994); see also Platts (1993). Procedural action research provides a methodology whereby business systems can be investigated by a process of active intervention. Action research relies upon extensive access to organisations, which is usually forthcoming due to the practical, useful nature of the outputs.

There are two stages associated with procedural action research: development and testing. During the development stage the procedure is expected to change significantly, incorporating improvements based on experience during its application. During the testing stage the procedure should not change significantly, although some refinement can be expected. A primary objective during the testing phase is to develop the contingent framework within which the procedure is applicable (i.e. a classification of organisations within which the procedure has been validated).

The TRM start-up process has been applied four times to date (see Table 1) in the development phase of the programme: two times in an 'exploratory' mode (i.e. to develop concepts and process) and two direct applications of the draft process procedure.

Table 1 - TRM start-up process applications

# / Company ID / Product / Area / Turnover ($ millions, '98) / Employees
Company / Business Unit (BU) / Company / BU
1* / Company A / Postal services / Future technology / markets
- Automation systems / 6,750 / - / >200,000 / 50
2* / Company B / Industrial coding systems / Business unit X - Inkjet / 200 / 140 / 1,400 / 60
3 / Company B / Industrial coding systems / Business unit Y - Laser / 200 / 15 / 1,400 / 25
4 / Company C / Security / access systems / Cards & readers products / 20 / - / 120 / -

* Exploratory cases

At this stage the TRM start-up process is judged to be fairly stable, and it is anticipated that the testing phase will begin shortly. Testing will entail the application of the method in a variety of industry sectors and company types.

5.TRM start-up process

Process overview

The aims of the TRM start-up process are to:

  1. Support the start-up of company-specific TRM processes.
  2. Establish key linkages between technology resources and business drivers.
  3. Identify important gaps in market, product and technology intelligence.
  4. Develop a ‘first-cut’ technology roadmap.
  5. Support technology strategy and planning initiatives in the firm.
  6. Support communication between technical and commercial functions.

The process is based around four key stages, which take the form of facilitated workshops (see Fig. 3), together with planning, co-ordination and implementation activities. The process is flexible in terms of time, resources and focus, and workshops can be extended or compressed depending on available information and the unit of analysis. Typically the process is initially applied in a series of four half-day workshops. The main elements of the process are summarised below.


Fig. 3 - TRM start-up process

Several factors should be considered prior to initiation of the TRM start-up process workshops, including:

  • Identification of appropriate participants.
  • Required resources and scheduling of workshops.
  • Identification of available information.
  • Definition of the unit of analysis.
  • Clear articulation of company objectives for the process.

Workshop participants should include both technical and commercial functions (e.g. research, development, manufacturing, marketing, finance). Continuity of participation is desirable, at least for a core set of participants. Establishing the objectives for the process is important, as a means for judging success, together with ensuring that the focus of the process is appropriate. Co-ordination is a key element of the TRM start-up process, with the need to ensure that the process is continually aligned with company needs (co-ordination points are included between each step - see Fig. 3), as the results from each workshop cannot always be predicted in advance. Reflection and discussion of workshop outputs is sensible prior to starting the next workshop. For this purpose, the setting up of a 'steering group' is recommended to co-ordinate the process.

Workshop 1: Market


This workshop aims to establish a set of prioritised market and business drivers for the future, reflecting external and internal factors. The 'performance dimensions' which drive product development within the business are considered first (e.g. speed, weight, reliability, aesthetics). Then market and business drivers are identified - a 'level up' from the performance dimensions (i.e. customer and business motivation), grouped and prioritised.

Fig. 4 - The 'performance envelope' is dictated by a trade-off between

market pull (requirements) and technology push (capabilities)

Starting with performance dimensions is helpful, as these relate directly to the product, and can usually be readily identified. Also, product performance is a fundamental factor that can be used to link the market drivers to technological capability - see Fig. 4.

Workshop 2: Product


This workshop aims to establish a set of 'product feature concepts' which could satisfy the drivers identified in Workshop 1 - a 'level down' from the performance dimensions. The market / business drivers and product feature concepts together define a simple grid which can be used to investigate the relationship between features and drivers (see Fig. 5). The product feature concepts are grouped and their impact ranked for each market and business driver, and alternative product strategies considered (in response to combinations of market and business drivers).

Fig. 5 - Analysis grids

Workshop 3: Technology

This workshop aims to identify possible technological solutions that could deliver the desired product features. These solutions are grouped into technical areas (or 'routes'), which taken with the product features defined in Workshop 2, define a second analysis grid (see Fig. 5). This links directly to the market-product grid described in Section 2.5 (the use of inter-linking grids is based on concepts proposed by de Wet, 1996). The impact of the technology areas on the desired product features is then ranked. The two analysis grids link together, and provide a means of relating the impact of technology to product features and market / business drivers, connecting the various levels of the roadmap.

Workshop 4: Roadmapping

Workshops 1-3 enable a simple framework for linking the three levels of the roadmap to be developed, together with a 'language' for supporting the construction of the roadmap (i.e. the categories that define the analysis grids - see Fig. 5). Attempting to develop a roadmap without the structure that is provided by the analysis grids is difficult. Workshop 4 draws the marketing and technology strands together to produce the first roadmap. The format of the TRM is defined, in terms of time scales, levels, and product strategy (e.g. platforms). Key milestones are identified, product evolution plotted, and technological programmes identified, together with linkages between the roadmap levels, bearing in mind the prioritised market drivers, high impact product features, and most attractive technological solutions.

Implementation issues

Implementation issues are considered at the end of the TRM start-up process, in terms of identifying gaps in market, product and technology knowledge, together with assessing how best to implement a complete roadmapping process in the company. The process should be appropriate to the particular company context, in terms of needs and circumstances. Success factors and barriers to success are considered, and 'next steps' identified.

5.Application results

To assess the effectiveness of each application and in order to improve the process, the success of the process is reviewed at the end of Workshop 4 and after six months.

Assessment

The review after Workshop 4 incorporates participant and facilitator views by means of questionnaires, which assess process effectiveness in terms of three key parameters:

  • Usefulness: how well did the application meet the stated objectives?
  • Functionality: how well did the application meet the generic aims of the TRM start-up process?
  • Usability: how simple was the process to follow, how well was the process facilitated, and was the mix of workshop participants appropriate?

These parameters are scored (on a scale of 1-5), based on a number of questions - see Table 2 for aggregate results. Note, the first two applications were not scored, as they were exploratory in nature.

Table 2 - TRM start-up process assessment

# / Usefulness / Functionality / Usability / Selected comments
3 / 3.8 / 3.9 / 4.2 /
  • Helped to effectively communicate the various ' visions' of the industry from management, marketing and technology groups.
  • Worked well as an introduction to the process, but more focused company-wide inputs will be needed to implement the approach.
  • The process reduced the complexity into simple, less complex steps.
  • Workshops 1, 2 & 3 were effective; workshop 4 lost focus and we agreed a different approach.
  • Insufficient time to discuss important issues.

4 / 3.4 / 3.1 / 2.9 /
  • The process focused on the challenges ahead of us.
  • We were not sufficiently prepared.
  • Insufficient time to discuss important issues.
  • Much of the discussion was useful, despite appearing to be confused.
  • Insufficient sales / marketing input.
  • The process helps to clarify 'gaps' in our product range and knowledge.

In each company a plan was devised to take the TRM process forward, in the context of company requirements and the strategic planning processes within the business. Evidence of medium to long term change in the organisation will be sought as part of an overall assessment of the success of the TRM start-up application. This will be assessed by interview after six months.