Developing a Technology Roadmapping System
Robert Phaal, Clare J.P. Farrukh, David R. Probert
Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, CB2 1RX, UK
Abstract—Technology roadmapping is becoming an
increasingly important and widespread approach for aligning
technology with organizational goals. The popularity of
roadmapping is due mainly to the communication and
networking benefits that arise from the development and
dissemination of roadmaps, particularly in terms of building
common understanding across internal and external
organizational boundaries. From its origins in Motorola and
Corning more than 25 years ago, where it was used to link
product and technology plans, the approach has been adapted
for many different purposes in a wide variety of sectors and at
all levels, from small enterprises to national foresight programs.
Building on previous papers presented at PICMET, concerning
the rapid initiation of the technique, and how to customize the
approach, this paper highlights the evolution and continuing
growth of the method and its application to general strategic
planning. The issues associated with extending the roadmapping
method to form a central element of an integrated strategic
planning process are considered.
I. INTRODUCTION
Since the initial development of the technology
roadmapping approach in the late 1970s by Motorola and
Corning [1,2] to support the linkage of strategic product and
technology plans, the method has been adopted (and adapted)
by many different organizations in different sectors, at the
firm, sector and national levels, to support a range of different
strategic goals [e.g. 3,4,5,6]. In the context of strategic
planning, the terms ‘roadmap’ and ‘roadmapping’ have
evolved to cover a range of meanings. However, what
roadmaps tend to have in common is the desire to capture a
high level, synthesized and integrated view of strategic plan/s,
Market
P1
Product
T1
Technology
R&D RD 1 RD 2
programmes
Resources
Fundamental (2)
questions that Where
roadmaps seek are we
to answer now?
Figure 1 – Multi-layer roadmap form for integration and alignment of strategic plans (adapted from [8])
99
in a simple graphical or tabular format, as the focal point of a
typical strategic planning document or business case. Fig. 1
illustrates perhaps the most useful and powerful format that
roadmaps can take, comprising a multi-layered time-based
chart, showing how various functional strategies align [7,8].
While roadmaps can take various forms, they all seek to
answer three simple questions (simple to pose, but not to
answer) – see Fig. 1, considering a range of perspectives,
including markets, products and technology: 1) Where are we
going? 2) Where are we now? and 3) How can we get there?
The multi-layered roadmap format can be generalized (see
Fig. 2), which illustrates a range of layer and sub-layer titles
(strategic themes) that have been observed, where three broad
layers (incorporating thematic sub-layers) can be identified,
which enables the approach to be generalized and applied to
many different situations [9]:
1. The top layer of the roadmap is concerned with the
purpose to which the organization aspires (‘know-why’),
together with the factors that influence that purpose
(trends and drivers). Typically, at the firm level, this
layer includes both external and internal perspectives
(market and business).
2. The middle layer of the roadmap is concerned with the
mechanisms through which the purpose is achieved.
Typically, at the firm level, this layer includes products,
services and operations, reflecting the tangible ‘know-
what’, linked directly to revenue generation.
3. The bottom layer of the roadmap is concerned with the
resources (including technology) that must be marshaled
and integrated to develop the delivery mechanisms
(‘know-how’).
Time
M1 M2
P2 P3
P4
T2
T3 T4
RD 4 RD 6
RD 3 RD 5
Capital investment / finance
Supply chain
Staff / skills
(3) (1)
How can Where do
we get we want
there? to go?
 Possible layers include: Short-term Medium-term Long-term Layers connect:
Past Now Plans Strategy Future Vision Time
Market / Customers / Competitors /
Environment / Industry / (know-when)
Business / Trends / Drivers / Threats /
Objectives / Milestones / Strategy /
Requirements / Constraints /
‘purpose’
Organisational capabilities / etc. (know-why)

l
ul
tP
ke
Products / Services / Applications /

ar
Capabilities / Performance /
‘delivery’

M
Features / Components / Families /

Evolution
Processes / Systems / Platforms / (know-what)
Equipment / Logistics / Infrastructure /
Opportunities / Requirements / Risks / etc.

sh
pu
Technology /

gy
Competences / Capabilities

lo
‘resources’

no
Knowledge / Science / etc.
(know-how)

ch
Te
Other resources:
Skills / Partnerships / Suppliers / Processes /
Facilities / Infrastructure / Organisation /
Standards / Science / Finance / R&D Projects / etc.

Figure 2 – Generalized roadmap form [9]

Alignment of these key perspectives, critical to aware of each other, leading to divergence of approach. At
successful innovation, is supported by representing key some point these communities may share experience, and
activities and issues on the roadmap, within their respective eventually sufficient momentum is gained, and the approach
layers and sub-layers, against an axis that represents time is sufficiently visible within the organization, that a concerted
(‘know-when’). Roadmaps also include two other dimensions effort is made to implement it as a method within core
of knowledge: ‘know-who’ and ‘know-where’, which tend to business processes (typically strategic planning, budget,
be embedded in the content of the roadmap. innovation and/or new product development). This is the
Fig. 3 shows the typical evolution of roadmapping in an ‘bottom-up organic’ approach, and is more common than a
organization, where an initial roadmap is developed (and then systematic top-down ‘big bang’ approach. At the point where
hopefully maintained), followed by others (based on the it is decided to implement roadmapping in a more systematic
success of the first). Quite often independent pockets of fashion, a new set of challenges must be confronted, relating
roadmapping expertise develop in organizations, with each to establishing common approaches, taxonomies, software
area developing roadmapping in different ways, often not solutions, etc.

Start Maintain

Start Maintain

Start Maintain

Start Maintain

Start Maintain

Start Maintain

Start Maintain

Experimentation Learning Roadmapping system

(individual (community • Common approach (process, architecture, software)
roadmaps) of practice)

Figure 3 – Typical development of roadmapping practice in a firm

This paper initially considers the evolution and growth of • The relationship between roadmapping and strategic
roadmapping, from its origins in technical functions in firms, planning.
focusing on integrated product-technology planning, to its • Roadmapping and systems integration.
current use as a general strategic planning approach. Then, • Roadmapping development maturity.
based on experience gained primarily in the defense and • The relationship between roadmapping and other
telecommunications sectors, a number of key related strategic planning approaches.
perspectives are considered: • Roadmapping and knowledge management.

100

II. EVOLUTION OF THE ROADMAPPING APPROACH
The roadmapping concept has been evolving since its
original development in Motorola and Corning, as
organizations have adapted the basic concept that lies at its
heart (the use of simple graphical or tabular formats to
represent complex strategic issues). Fig. 4 illustrates the
evolution of the approach, showing how roadmapping
evolved out the field of strategic planning at the firm level.
Early adopters included other firms in the consumer
electronics sector, such as Philips [7] and Lucent
Technologies [10], and also in other technology intensive
sectors – primarily aerospace and defense. A key landmark in
the evolution of the approach was the development of the
sector-level semiconductor roadmap, initially in the USA,
and then internationally [11], where competitors collaborated
to ensure that the whole sector benefited through common
standards and infrastructure, and to ensure appropriate
government funding and support. While company-level
roadmaps are generally highly confidential, sector-level
roadmaps tend to be actively promoted and disseminated,
resulting over time in the proliferation of the approach in
other sectors and by governments and trade associations at
1970 1980
Strategic
planning
Motorola / Corning
develop
technology
roadmapping
approach
Co-evolution
Forecasting
Policy Foresight
Science fiction
Figure 4 – Co-evolution of ‘future-oriented’ management processes
The University of Cambridge Centre for Technology
Management has been undertaking research in the area of
roadmapping since 1997, focusing on the rapid and efficient
initiation of the approach, working in collaboration with
industry. A survey of roadmapping practitioners indicated
that the two main challenges of implementing the approach
were developing the first roadmap, and maintaining the
roadmap on an ongoing basis. The initial research phase led
to the publication of the ‘T-Plan’ guide in 2001 [12]. In
addition, efforts have focused on the generalization and
customization of the method for general strategic appraisal
and planning, based on the observation that the method has
been used in a variety of ways. To date, more than 75
applications have been undertaken in a many sectors,
company types, technology and application areas, and in
support of a range of strategic goals [13]. More recently,
several projects have focused on the broader issue of how an
the sector level (for example, US Department of Energy and
Industry Canada).
It should be noted that technology roadmapping is not an
isolated independent approach, but rather a method that
supports strategic planning at the firm, sector or national
levels (at the national level, strategic planning is typically
termed ‘policy development’), where for several decades the
term ‘foresight’ has been used to represent national strategic
plans, generally focused on research and other actions
necessary to support key sectors. These approaches,
supported by specific future-oriented techniques such as
forecasting and scenario planning, have co-evolved.
Roadmaps provide a powerful mechanism for integrating
these various approaches (the power of roadmaps as
‘dynamic systems frameworks’ is explored in Section IV).
It should also be noted that there is an element of
‘faddism’ associated with the approach. The term ‘roadmap’
tends to imply certainty and clarity of purpose in an uncertain
and complex world, and often the word is used to describe
(‘re-brand’) traditional strategic plans or foresight initiatives,
without the discipline and process required to synthesize and
represent a complex integrated strategic plan in a simple
graphical or tabular format.
Cambridge Fast-start
1997 Generalisation
1990 2000 2010
Customisation
Take up in Semiconductor
electronics Technology Roadmap
Roadmapping
sector, approach
defense Take up in supports
and other sectors integrated
aerospace - companies strategic
- consortia planning
- governments
Futures & Scenario planning
organization can set up a roadmapping system, where the
roadmapping approach is used as a core element of strategic
and innovation management processes within the firm (see
Section III).
Searching the internet for technology roadmaps
demonstrates the range of applications to which the approach
has been applied, although this may lead to the mistaken
impression that most activity is at the sector level. As
mentioned earlier, most company level roadmaps are not
published, although companies are generally willing to share
experience of the process of roadmapping, leading to the
development of a number of networks and groups focusing
on the topic – for example:
• MATI – Management of Accelerated Technology
Innovation (http://mati.ncms.org).
• EIRMA – European Industries Research Management
Association TRM Working Group (www.eirma.asso.fr).
101
• TRMUG – Technology Roadmapping User Group
(www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ctm/trm).
• Alignent – software and roadmapping user groups and
seminars (www.alignent.com).
Table 1 shows the results from a series of internet
searches conducted over the last year, using a range of
different roadmapping search strings. The searches were
made with the GoogleTM search engine, which has become an
industry standard. These results provide a measure of the
volume of internet content, and an indication of the level of
roadmapping activity. While the basic mechanisms by which
the Google search engine works are known [14]
(www.google.com), the detailed mechanisms and measures
used are not publicized, for reasons of commercial
confidentiality and also to mitigate against manipulation by
others for business benefit (there is considerable value
associated with a high ranking).

TABLE 1 – ‘GOOGLETM INDEX’ – SEARCH ‘HITS’ ON VARIATIONS OF THE TERM ‘ROADMAPPING’ (PROCESS),
‘ROADMAP’ (CONTENT) – THE MORE WIDELY USED FORMS OF THE TERM ‘ROADMAP’ ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD
Search term February 2004 May 2004 August 2004 November 2004 February 2005
“Technology roadmapping” 3,500 3.550 3,850 11,200 9.680
“Technology roadmap” 52,400 56,800 63,300 153,000 175,000
“Roadmapping” 12,200 14,000 15,400 38,100 41,600
“Innovation roadmapping” 40 43 43 71 134
“Innovation roadmap” 733 609 843 1,190 1,300
“Business roadmapping” 122 149 171 245 240
“Business roadmap” 6,740 4,810 4,550 11,700 11,000
“Strategic roadmapping” 225 176 319 559 677
“Strategic roadmap” 4,680 5,150 5,170 13,000 15,300
“Technology route mapping” 24 25 47 24 25
“Technology route map” 72 132 97 119 107
“Science roadmap” - - 674 1,230 820
“Program roadmap” - - 714 821 797
“Market roadmap” - - 488 1,720 1,850
“Industry roadmap” - - 2,640 6,420 7,250
“Customer roadmap” - - 111 174 182
“Product roadmap” - - 26,800 61,200 72,300
“Service roadmap” - - 803 1,090 1,050
“Production roadmap” - - 154 207 222
“Enterprise roadmap” - - 356 463 494
“Application roadmap” - - 5,570 5,180 5,220
“Process roadmap” - - 712 880 1,440
“Design roadmap” - - 881 1,210 1,210
“Engineering roadmap” - - 945 631 1,310
“Policy roadmap” - - 1,690 5,840 4,940
“Infrastructure roadmap” - - 587 747 845
“Risk roadmap” - - 73 70 69
“Investment roadmap” - - 403 557 622
“Roadmap for peace” - - 9,850 18,900 17,900

A number of observations can be made from
examination of Table 1:
• The dominant term is ‘technology’ roadmapping, largely
due to its historical roots, stimulated by a desire from
technology functions to communicate more effectively
the value of technology within the business. This can be
misleading, as roadmapping is typically not just about
technology, but includes other functions as well,
particularly commercial. This can be a barrier when
implementing the approach, in terms of participation
from non-technical functions (and technology alone,
without consideration of the routes through which it can
be exploited, has limited value).
• Other terms associated with roadmapping that are
increasing used include ‘strategic’, ‘business’ and
‘innovation’ roadmapping, which are perhaps more
appropriate, given the main objective of the approach, of
linking technology to business objectives. The second
most widely used term is ‘product’ roadmapping, which
also reflects the historical roots of the approach, where
product and technology roadmaps were developed hand-
in-hand.
• There appears to be between 5-10% growth in
roadmapping internet content per quarter, indicating an
increasing interest in the approach (note, however, no
assessment has been made of general internet content
growth, as measured by Google, so these figures should
be treated with caution). The large growth in ‘hits’
between August and November 2004 (a factor of 2-3)
suggests a significant change in Google search
parameters, with the growth rate returning to the 5-10%
trend subsequently.

102
• Virtually any (reasonable) word, associated with roadmapping process is shown, indicating a rapid rise over
‘roadmapping’ appears to generate hits, indicating that the past few years. The data shown is based on a reasonably
the approach has spread widely in terms of its usage in complete bibliography of 56 roadmapping papers
the area of strategic planning. (www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ctm/trm/resources.html), published
• The increasing visibility of the roadmapping approach is over an 18 year period (focusing on the roadmapping process,
highlighted by the number of hits associated with rather than roadmaps themselves). Several key milestones in
‘roadmap for peace’ (in the Middle East), indicating that the evolution of roadmapping are also shown in Fig. 5. It is
the concept has reached the notice of policy makers at an interesting observation that academic interest in a
the highest level. technique that has been of such clear relevance and use to
industry has lagged practice by several decades.
A further perspective on the evolution of roadmapping is
shown in Fig. 5, where a count of publications on

Some key milestones in the evolution of roadmapping

18 First known International MATI (Management EIRMA First known TRMUG Roadmap
17 roadmapping Technology of Accelerated technology reference to (Technology for Peace
journal Roadmap for Technology roadmapping roadmapping Roadmapping in the
16 paper, Semiconductors Innovation) working in popular User Group) Middle
Motorola [1] (ITRS) started Consortium formed Group [8] fiction [15] formed East [17]
15
14
13
12
No. Publications

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year
Figure 5 – Evolution of roadmapping: ‘process’ publications and key milestones

The evolution of roadmapping from its origins in time the quotation marks disappeared, and the term
technical functions of firms, to the sector / national level, and appears to be accepted as common usage in this context.
more recently to popular culture and mass usage is
interesting: III. ROADMAPPING AND STRATEGIC PLANNING
• The first known use of the term ‘road map’ in popular
(science) fiction, in the context of strategic planning, is: There is often confusion between what is ‘strategic
“Since then we, and others, have worked hard to compile, planning’ and what is ‘technology roadmapping’. Fig. 6
umm, a road map of the future. In fact, we already have illustrates one view [8], where roadmapping is seen as a
proof that our studies of the future are generally discrete step in the strategic planning process, used to capture
successful.” [15], and the use of the term ‘route map’: and communicate the outputs from the strategic planning
“And, perhaps, Nemoto and her strange science would process, as a key step towards implementation. For
provide the first route map.” [16]. organizations where strategic planning is a mature process
• Visibility of the technique at the highest levels of this may be the case (and mapping strategic plans onto a
government (probably due to the extensive use of the roadmap framework is a good test of how mature and well
approach by the US Department of Energy) is evidenced articulated a strategic plan is), although over time,
by the “Roadmap for Peace in the Middle East” [17]. roadmapping concepts tend to ‘infiltrate’ the whole strategic
Initially, when the term ‘roadmap’ first appeared in the planning process, and the two terms become one
popular press in this context, it always appeared within (roadmapping is a synonym for strategic planning) – hence
quotation marks, or as the ‘so-called’ roadmap, but over the confusion.

103
 Market Information Where are the
boundaries of
the roadmapping
process?
Product-Market analysis

Product-Technology Roadmap Defined Project

Options Evaluation Creation Targets Proposals

Technology Assessment

Identification of Technology
Available / Feasible / Possible

Figure 6 – Relationship between roadmapping and strategic planning (adapted from [8])

Fig. 7 shows a process ‘funnel’, typically associated with
strategic planning and innovation processes. When
roadmapping is used at the earlier stages (where the preferred
options that will be pursued are not clear), then the way in
which roadmapping is used will be very different from the
end of the funnel, where the strategic (or innovation) plan is
clear. At the ‘fuzzy’ front end of the funnel roadmaps can be
used to identify and explore options (a ‘first-cut’ roadmap),
while at the end of the funnel roadmaps are used to
communicate and implement strategic plans (for example, the
Motorola roadmap described by Willyard & McClees [1].
The maturity of the roadmap can never exceed the maturity of
strategic thinking at any stage in the funnel. Instead, efforts
should be made to ensure that the roadmap evolves in parallel
with the process, reflecting the ‘best understanding’ of the
situation at any given time.

Process funnel (e.g. strategy, new product development, design)

Stage gates

Requirements fluid
Concepts fuzzy Requirements clear, stable
Many unknowns Time, effort, iteration Concepts clear, stable
Many options Fewer unknowns, risks understood
Many assumptions Fewer options, greater constraints
Few constraints
Scenarios

Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

Tuning Push button Push button - Synthesizers Touch pad - Synthesizers Voice actuated

Selectivity Ceramic resonators SAWs Digital signal processors

Subcarrier function Stereo Paging Data Maps

IC technology Linear 5u CMOS 3u CMOS 1u CMOS

Display LEDs Liquid crystal Fluorescence

Vehicular LAN Single wire Glass fibre

Digital modulation 500 kHz bandwidth

‘First-cut’ Mature PRODUCTS

RECEIVER 1 RECEIVER 2 RECEIVER 3 NEXT GENERATION

Plus:
FUTURE GENERATION

A NEW SERVICE

roadmap roadmap
Stereo Plus: Plus:
Stock market
Scan Personal Road information Super Hi Fi
paging Remote
Seek amplifiers Local maps
Remote controls

Divergent process Convergent process

Figure 7 – Co-development of roadmap and business process (funnel), showing

‘first-cut’ roadmap (T-Plan ‘fast-start’ approach [12]) and Motorola roadmap [1]

If roadmapping is to be implemented effectively as a
core activity it is important to keep the two processes clearly
separated. Roadmaps simply provide a framework within
which information can be stored, positioned and linked, and
shared / disseminated. The focus should be on strategic
planning, with roadmapping providing a mechanism, catalyst
and common language to carry the strategic planning process
forward. For roadmapping to be effective, the business
processes that it supports must be clearly understood.
Roadmapping is like a mirror held up to the organization, and
any process or organizational issues that hinder effective
strategic planning will be revealed, and might have to be
addressed. For this reason, organizations often report that it
takes considerable time (often several years) before ‘good’
roadmaps are developed. This is not due to the complexity of
roadmapping (which in essence is very simple – just a clear
graphical framework), but rather a reflection on the difficulty
of developing well-founded, aligned and integrated strategic
plans. Fig. 8 illustrates how the data flows between business
processes and the roadmap framework can be mapped within
an annual planning / budget cycle. The roadmap management
process then becomes a small part of the overall strategic
planning process, mainly concerned with governance of the
roadmapping system (taxonomies, use of software, ensuring
that the roadmap content is up-to-date and of adequate quality,
etc.).

104
 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Corporate
Strategy

Business Unit
Strategy
Business
processes Functional
Strategy

Technology
Data flows Strategy
across
interface
Market &
Business

Product,
Roadmap Service &
architecture System

Inputs Outputs
Technology &
Capability

Roadmapping
management
process

Figure 8 – Aligning roadmapping with business processes

IV. ROADMAPPING AND SYSTEMS INTEGRATION dimension, within which the various elements of the
innovation system (technology, products, markets, etc.)
In a general sense, roadmaps can be considered as evolve and develop provides a dynamic view of the system.
‘dynamic systems frameworks’, where the architecture of the The close relationship between roadmapping and
roadmap (the set of layers and sub-layers) reflects the systems thinking is illustrated in Fig. 9, which shows the
‘innovation system’ within the firm (how technology and structure of a roadmap that was developed as a high-level
other resources are integrated over time into products and framework for the UK defense industry, covering the full
systems that have value to markets and the business). The span of system acquisition and management activities, taking
roadmap architecture is very important, reflecting how the a full life-cycle view. A systems integration ‘V’ model is
business thinks about itself. Quite often organizations report super-imposed, showing how the system requirements are
that having a consistent view of the company (provided by established (requirements ‘flow down’ the roadmap), and
the roadmap/s), and a ‘common language’ (provided by the then the system is developed (integrated) over time to deliver
layers and sub-layers of the roadmap/s), are some of the key the desired military capability (which ‘flows up’ the
benefits of adopting the approach. The explicit time roadmap).

Title, Date Past 2004 + 5 years 2009 + 10 years 2014 + 15 years 2019 + 20 years 2024 + 30 yrs 2034 >30 y Vision
Trends & drivers
Social, Technological,
Economic,
Environmental &
Political issues
Threats
Allies
National policy

Project at
Capability
Strategic User Requirements SRL 3 Service Acceptance
Planners
Network enabled
capability
Concepts & System
Doctrine Procurement Contract Acceptance
Requirements / Contract
Personnel
Structures &
Lines of Development

Estates
Sustainability Platform / System
Prime Integration, Verification,
Training Design & Sub-System
Contractor Testing
Requirements
Platforms
Equipment & Technology

Systems
Equipment System and Sub-System Design,
Component Integration, Verification,
Subsystems Component Requirements,
Testing
Components Suppliers Component Design

Enabling SRL
technology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Other research, Project commences Delivery into Service
resources and Project progression
activities
Partnerships
Finance
Industry
Business processes
etc.

Figure 9 – Roadmapping as a ‘dynamic systems framework’ – Defense example, with insert showing
systems integration ‘V’ model and ‘system readiness maturity levels’ – SRLs (Source: Defence
Procurement Agency, UK Ministry of Defence)

105
 The scope of the roadmap (unit of analysis and
granularity) is an important consideration – see Fig. 10 [12].
In principle, there should be a core set of roadmaps that link
together in an hierarchical fashion, so that low-level
roadmaps can be ‘rolled up’ to form high level roadmaps.
Similarly it should be possible to ‘drill down’ from high-level
Unit of analysis
roadmaps to more detailed / granular roadmaps. Apart from
this ‘core’ set of roadmaps, that tie into the organizational
structure and responsibilities, there will typically be many
other roadmap ‘views’ created for specific purposes, but
which draw from the ‘master’ set (for example, to support
communication with suppliers and customers).
Technology roadmap

Environment
Market
Segment / Segment / Segment /
Industry / Economic
Customer Customer Customer forecasting / charting
Grids

Integrated hierarchy of roadmaps

Corporation
Division
Business Unit
Product Product Product time
Family Family Family

Business /
Market
T-Plan T-Plan
Customised Standard

Product /
Product Product Product

Service
Focus Focus
Component / Component / Component /

Technology
Sub System Sub System Sub System

Technology Technology Technology

Area Area Area Technology
forecasting /
Grids
Technology Technology Technology charting
Granularity:
• Drill down
Science, Science, Science,
Competence, Competence, Competence,
• Roll up
Resources Resources Resources

Figure 10 – Unit of analysis – hierarchy [12]

‘Linking grids’, similar to the quality function
deployment (QFD) approach used in design to link customer
requirements to technology solutions (e.g. [18]) are a key
approach that relates to roadmapping – see Section VI for
discussion of how roadmaps form an integrating focus within
strategic planning, linking to other tools and techniques. The
first set of linked grids shown in Fig. 11 allow corporate
objectives and strategies to ‘flow down’ to lower levels in the
firm, forming a set of hierarchical grids that are closely
related to the set of hierarchical roadmaps, in terms of the
unit of analysis discussed above. The second set of linked
grids relate to specific roadmaps, providing a means for
linking layers and sub-layers of the roadmap, and to enable
prioritization of products (or features / functions) and
technologies to be established. Such grids allow the
management of linkages between roadmaps to be managed
more easily. For example, the Graphical Modelling System
(GMS) roadmapping software developed by the US Office of
Naval Research (www.onr.navy.mil/gms/gms.asp) includes a
specific tool based on this principle.

Corporate Market Segments /

Objectives Drivers

Corporate Products /
Strategies Features /
Division Functions
Objectives

Division Technology
Strategies
Business Unit
Objectives

Business Science /
Unit Competences /
Strategies Resources

(a) (b)

Figure 11 – Linkage grids: (a) Organizational ‘flow down/up’ of objectives and strategies;
(b) Functional linkages / priorities (linking layers of roadmap)

Implementing a roadmapping system throughout an architecture (taxonomies), typically enforced by common

organization (or part of an organization) demands some software systems and business processes. However, a balance
common standards, in terms of process and roadmap should be struck between prescription and flexibility,

106
recognizing that ‘one size does not fit all’, and different
approaches may be required in different parts of the
organization, and for different purposes (but these differences
should be for good reason, not just because there is a lack of
communication and sharing of experience in the
organization). A community of practice, together with a
steering group (including representatives from both users and
developers of roadmaps) can support the development of an
effective roadmapping system.
V. ROADMAPPING DEVELOPMENT AND MATURITY
As individual roadmaps develop, and as the set of
roadmaps develop (the roadmapping system), it is helpful to
have in place a set of measures to manage the process.
Several have been proposed, with three summarized below.
The first, Table 2, focuses on the development of a particular
roadmap, where through a number of iterations the level of
‘completeness’ can be monitored with Albright’s value
scorecard [19].
The other two maturity models that have been identified
include consideration of both individual roadmaps and the
roadmapping system. A three-stage maturity model has been
proposed by Lucent Technologies, which emphasizes the
iterative nature of roadmapping – see Fig. 12 [10]:
1. The first stage of maturity, which represents a ‘quick
win’, relates to the process benefit of developing
roadmaps, even at the early stage, based on
communication benefits, where common understanding
can be developed. This is the area where the Cambridge
T-Plan ‘fast-start’ approach is focused [12].
2. Roadmaps can be considered to have reached the second
stage of maturity if they are of sufficient quality that they
can be used to persuade others (not directly involved in
the roadmap development) to change their behavior (for
example, to release budget or to change research project
priorities).
3. The ‘holy grail’ of roadmapping is represented by the
third level of maturity, which few (if any) firms have
fully achieved, where priorities and activities are
synchronized across the organization.

TABLE 2 – ROADMAPPING VALUE SCORECARD [19]

Session (four stage process)
Section 1 2 3 4
weight Score (1-5) Score (1-5) Score (1-5) Score (1-5)
Market and competitive strategy 1
• Market definition 1 3 4 4 4
• Customer drivers 1 4 5 5 5
• Competitor landscape 1 3 4 4 4
• Competitive strategy 1 5 4 5 5
Product roadmap 1
• Map to product drivers 1 1 3 5 5
• Product drivers / targets 1 3 4 4
• Experience curves 0
• Product architecture 1 5 5 5
• Feature development plan 0
Technology roadmap 2
• Map to technology elements 1 1 4 5
• Element development 1 1 3 5
• Forward cost model 0
Summary and action plan 1
• Action summary 1 4
• Technology investments 1 5
• Risk roadmap 1 3

Value confidence score (of 100%) 16% 40% 65% 93%

Table 3 shows a four-stage maturity model proposed by Motorola and other large organizations), which roughly
Alignent, who have developed an enterprise-strength parallels the Lucent Technologies approach illustrated in Fig.
roadmapping software system (in collaboration with 12.

107
 Programme
management

Project 3
management
Synchronise Corporate
2 planning
Forecasting
Persuade Product Portfolio
1 planning management

Understand Resource
Measure: Measure:
Simplification allocation Ongoing
Aligned
priorities & co-ordination
Competitive Measure: decisions
analysis Accuracy
and clarity

Fast-Start
Roadmapping
influence

Figure 12 – Maturity model (Lucent Technologies [10])

A number of success factors influence the speed and
take-up of roadmapping in organizations. For example, the
Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs [20] has assessed a
range of ‘supra-company’ level roadmaps (i.e. sector or
national initiatives involving multiple organizations), and has
identified the following critical success factors (many of
which are also true for in-company applications):
• Preparation: the need to link to broader policy strategy;
the benefit of launching the roadmapping initiative
within an existing network (‘social infrastructure’); the
importance of creating a ‘sense of urgency’; ensuring
high-level commitment; the importance of ‘visioning’
and goal setting; the need for active industrial
involvement and ownership; and a clear link to decision
makers.
• Implementation: there is no single format that works best
(i.e. customization is typically required); the need to
sustain momentum, supported by a good process; the
need to maintain a degree of flexibility; a culture of
openness; and consideration of resource issues, in terms
of effort and finance.
• Follow-up: iteration (reviewing the roadmap on a regular
basis); and monitoring outcomes, uptake and impacts.

TABLE 3 – ALIGNENT MATURITY MODEL (WWW.ALIGNENT.COM)

Maturity Level 1 Maturity Level 2 Maturity Level 3 Maturity Level 4
- Organising - Proactive - Collaborative - Comprehensive
• Roadmaps are often • Roadmapping becomes a • Participants from cross- • Roadmaps are shared across
done by individuals to group effort. functional areas contribute business units.
clarify their own vision. • Roadmaps are updated at planning information to • High-level ‘whole enterprise’
• May utilise different regular planning roadmaps. roadmaps emerge to provide
types of roadmaps, but intervals. • Linkages between roadmaps ‘the big picture’.
roadmaps are not • Roadmap data is more create agreements between • Roadmapping practice is tightly
interconnected. commonly used in gate participants. coupled with other company
• Roadmaps are not shared reviews and other • Shared planning elements are processes.
widely or distributed business decisions. commonly used to create • Roadmap data is used to
beyond small • Approved roadmaps are cross-functional roadmaps. support improved decision
workgroups. shared across functions • Environmental roadmaps making.
• Tools include a variety • Consistent roadmap include customer • Real-time changes in roadmap
of desktop software structures begin to form. requirements, competitor data trigger off-cycle
applications, and • Common approaches to plans, industry roadmaps, evaluation of the plan of
typically roadmaps do creating roadmaps are academic research, etc. record.
not share a consistent adopted. • Technology roadmaps can • Supplier roadmapping process
look. include supplier planning includes procurement
data department, engineers and all
key suppliers.

It should be noted that these success factors are similar to
many change programs, although a particular challenge
associated with roadmapping is its close alignment with
strategic planning, which touches on many aspects of a firm’s
activities, at many levels. Thus, an initial outcome (and
benefit) of the approach is to reveal problems and
inconsistencies in the firm’s processes, structures and culture,
which may need to be addressed.
VI. ROADMAPPING AND OTHER STRATEGIC
PLANNING TOOLS
Roadmaps, and the process for developing roadmaps, are
closely aligned with the strategic planning processes and
approaches adopted in firms, as described previously in this
paper. One of the key benefits of roadmaps is to provide a
focus for integration within strategic planning and innovation
processes (a common reference point for ongoing discussion,
and a place to store information). Fig. 13 illustrates how

108
roadmapping relates to a number of tools and techniques used
to support strategic planning:
• General strategic planning approaches such as Porter’s
five forces [21], which identifies five classes of
competitive forces that impact on an organization
(industry competitors, suppliers, buyers, new entrants
and substitutes) provide the overall strategic context
within which roadmaps can be developed. That is, there
is some strategic thinking to do prior to embarking on a
roadmapping initiative, to define the focus and scope of
the roadmap. Similarly, the well-known ‘SWOT’
technique, where internal strengths and weaknesses of
the firm are assessed in relation to external opportunities
and threats, provides a means for establishing the broad
strategic context. However, strategic planning is
typically an iterative process, and these approaches often
must be revisited as the roadmap develops and matures.

STEEPI
(Social, Technological,
Economic, Environmental, Porter’s
Political, Infrastructural Technology
Five Forces
Trends & Drivers) Intelligence

SWOT time Scenario

(Strengths, Market
Weaknesses, Business
Innovation
Opportunities,
System Product
Threats) • Structure
(taxonomy)
Service
• Scaleable System
(hierarchy)
Technology
Resources

Valuation
Portfolio
Linking
grids

Figure 13 - Roadmapping framework integrates with other strategic planning tools

• The top layer of the roadmap typically includes the
external trends and drivers that influence the
organization, including social, technological, economic,
environmental, political and infrastructural factors
(which the firm generally has little or no control over) –
these factors are often referred to by the acronyms such
as ‘STEEP’, ‘STEEPI’, ‘STEP’ and ‘PESTLE’.
• The quality of a roadmap depends to a large extent on the
quality of the data that it contains, particularly with
respect to external data that must be gathered and
incorporated. Thus, there is a close link to the market and
technology intelligence systems that a firm has in place
to identify, gather, interpret and disseminate strategically
important information.
• Roadmaps typically include a range of time frames,
including the past, short-, medium- and long-term
perspectives, and vision (aspirations). The absolute years
associated with these timeframes depends on the rate of
change (‘clockspeed’), in terms of both markets and
technology, but generally there is considerable
uncertainty associated with the right-hand side of the
roadmap (the long-term). The scenario planning
approach (e.g., [22]) provides a means for exploring
possible futures and their impact on the strategic options
a firm has, based on establishing the external trends and
drivers that are both important and uncertain.
• A key aspect of roadmapping is to map the preferred and
possible options that a firm can pursue, leading to action,
projects and budget allocation in the short-term. A wide
range of portfolio methods has been developed to
support the process of project selection and the
management of the ‘portfolio of options’ over time (e.g.
[23]). A range of financial evaluation techniques is
widely used to support the valuation of technology (and
other) options and projects, such as net-present value,
internal rate of return, discounted cash flow, time to
break even and payback, although it should be
emphasized that such techniques are not well suited to
the valuation of early stage technology, where techniques
such as ‘real options’ have greater applicability (e.g.
[24]).
• A range of ‘linkage grids’ approaches is also used to
support prioritization and to understand the relationships
between various perspectives in the firm, at different
levels (this is discussed in more detail in Section IV).
VII. ROADMAPPING AND KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT
There is a close relationship between roadmaps (and
roadmapping) and knowledge management. As discussed in
Section I, roadmaps provide a framework within which
various types of data and information can be stored know-
why, -what, -how, -when, -who and -where, and the
relationships between these knowledge types). The data and
information that can be stored on the roadmap relates to
‘explicit’ knowledge (i.e. which can be articulated, written
down or shown graphically). The roadmapping process
focuses more on the sharing of perspectives, involving
interaction between people, leading to communication, new

109
understanding, insights, creativity and learning, and hence
relates more to ‘tacit’ knowledge (i.e. which cannot be
readily articulated, written down or shown graphically).
The development of roadmaps is typically an iterative
process, which involves periodic review and improvement of
the roadmap, based on human interaction (face-to-face
meetings and workshops are of particular importance,
although such discussions can be supported by information
technology). These iterations, where knowledge is converted
repeatedly between explicit and tacit knowledge, is closely
related to organizational learning models such as that
Roadmaps
(explicit knowledge)
Market Know-why
Knowledge
Architecture Product Know-what
(taxonomy)
Technology Know-how
Tacit
Software,
Socialization
Information
technology Tacit
Explicit
Internalization
Figure 14 – Roadmapping as knowledge management
(based on discussions with Prof. A. Kameoka, JAIST, Tokyo, 2004)
Thus, roadmapping can be considered to be an iterative
learning process, combining tacit and explicit knowledge, and
roadmaps are in effect knowledge management tools that
have the following key characteristics:
• Structured (provided by the roadmap architecture – data
and information has a location on the roadmap).
• Contextual (information shown on the roadmap does not
exist in isolation, but is related to other information and
systems-based perspectives).
• Dynamic (due to the explicit incorporation of the time
dimension on the roadmap).
• Action-oriented (the main purpose of the roadmap is to
build consensus and confidence about what to do next,
which projects to select, and where to allocate budget).
The power of roadmapping as a knowledge management
approach is particularly powerful if supported by appropriate
software tools (although, the implementation of such tools
should only be considered once some experience has been
gained in the technique, and the requirements are clearly
understood). For example, the Geneva Vision Strategist
(GVS) software developed by Alignent allows roadmaps to
be developed in a distributed way, linking roadmaps together,
and providing a direct link to supporting sources from each
element of the roadmap (documents, web sites, etc.).
proposed by Nonaka [25] – see Fig. 14, where learning is
achieved through an iterative ‘spiral’ model:
1. The sharing of knowledge and experience face-to-face,
developing new insights.
2. The capture of this knowledge on the roadmap.
3. Refinement of the roadmap to improve the quality of
information contained in it (often through desk-based
research), to fill gaps in knowledge, linking to other
roadmaps, activities in the firm, etc.
4. Implementation of actions and projects identified on the
roadmap, and the learning that arises through experience.
Roadmaping process
(tacit knowledge)
Time
Know-when
Know-who
Know-where
People, networks and
Explicit process
Externalization Roadmapping is an iterative learning
process, combining explicit knowledge
(roadmaps) and tacit knowledge
Learning
(roadmapping process)
cycle
Roadmaps are structured, contextual,
dynamic action-oriented knowledge
Combination
management tools
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
The historical evolution of the roadmapping approach
has been summarized, highlighting its continuing growth,
with organizations of all types drawn to the (apparent)
simplicity and clarity of the approach (good roadmaps look
‘simple’, but developing a good roadmap is typically a
complex and iterative process). Achieving this apparent
simplicity lies at the heart of the craft that is roadmapping –
creating, articulating and sharing a clear route forward in a
complex and uncertain world. Developing and maintaining a
single roadmap can be challenging, reflecting the difficulty of
developing an effective and integrated strategic plan, which
can adapt to an ever-changing environment. Developing a
roadmapping system within an organization represents an
even greater challenge, where plans and activities across
different functions and business units are aligned, supported
by a culture of sharing and an effective knowledge
management system. A number of issues relating to the
development of roadmapping systems in organizations have
been highlighted, based on collaboration with several
organizations, particularly in the defense and
telecommunications sectors. Research is continuing, to better
understand the potential of the roadmapping approach and
110
how organizations can deploy the technique in a way that fits
with their own organizational structures, processes, culture [12]
and business goals. Sharing experience is a vital aspect of this
learning, as organizations continue to experiment with the
application of the approach.
[13]
REFERENCES [14]
[1] Willyard, C.H. and McClees, C.W. (1987), ‘Motorola’s technology
roadmapping process’, Research Management, Sept.-Oct., pp. 13-19. [15]
[2] Probert, D. and Radnor, M. (2003), ‘Frontier experiences from [16]
industry-academia consortia’, Research Technology Management, 42 [17]
(2), pp. 27-30.
[3] Barker, D. and Smith, D.J.H. (1995), ‘Technology foresight using
roadmaps’, Long Range Planning, 28 (2), pp. 21-28. [18]
[4] Brown, R. and Phaal, R. (2001), ‘The use of technology roadmaps as a
tool to manage technology developments and maximise the value of [19]
research activity’, IMechE Mail Technology Conference (MTC 2001),
Brighton, 24-25th April 2001.
[5] Albright, R.E. and Kappel, T.A. (2003), ‘Roadmapping in the [20]
corporation’, Research Technology Management, 42 (2), pp. 31-40.
[6] Holmes, C.J., Ferrill, M.B.A. and Phaal R. (2004), ‘Reasons for
roadmapping: a study of the Singaporean SME manufacturing sector’, [21]
Proceedings of the IEEE International Engineering Management
Conference (IEMC), 18-21 October, Singapore. [22]
[7] Groenveld, P. (1997), ‘Roadmapping integrates business and
technology’, Research Technology Management, Sept-Oct., pp. 48-55. [23]
[8] EIRMA (1997), Technology Roadmapping - delivering business vision,
European Industry Research Management Association, Working Group [24]
Report No. 52, Paris.
[9] Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P, Mills, J.F. and Probert, D.R. (2003),
‘Customizing the technology roadmapping approach’, Proceedings of
Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and [25]
Technology (PICMET), Portland, 20-24th July.
[10] Kappel, T.A. (2001), ‘Perspectives on roadmaps: how organizations
talk about the future’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, pp.
39-50.
[11] Kostoff, R.N. and Schaller, R.R. (2001), ‘Science and technology
111
roadmaps’, IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management, 38 (2), pp.
132-143.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2001), T-Plan: the fast-
start to technology roadmapping - planning your route to success,
ISBN 1-902546-09-1, Institute for Manufacturing, University of
Cambridge.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2004), ‘Customizing
roadmapping’, Research Technology Management, 47 (2), pp. 26-37.
Brin, S. and Page, L. (1998), ‘The anatomy of a large-scale
hypertextual web search engine’. [www-
db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html]
Baxter, S. (1999), Time, Voyager / HarperCollinsPublishers, pg. 16.
Baxter, S. (2000), Space, Voyager / HarperCollinsPublishers, pg 13.
United Nations (2003), A performance-based roadmap to a permanent
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
[www.un.org/media/main/roadmap122002.html]
Martinich, J.S. (1997), Production and operations management: an
applied modern approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Albright, R.E. (2003), ‘A unifying architecture for roadmaps frames a
value scorecard’, IEEE International Engineering Management
Conference, Albany, NY, 2-4 November.
De Laat, B. and McKibbin, S. (2003), The effectiveness of technology
road mapping – building a strategic vision, Dutch Ministry of
Economic Affairs. [www.ez.nl]
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive strategy - techniques for analyzing
industries and competitors, The Free Press, New York.
Ringland, G. (1998), Scenario planning: managing for the future, John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1998), Portfolio
management for new products, Addison-Wesley, Reading (Mass).
Hunt, F., Mitchell, R., Phaal, R. and Probert, D. (2004), Early valuation
of technology: real options, hybrid models and beyond, Journal of the
Society of Instrument and Control Engineers in Japan, 43(10), pp. 730-
735.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), cited in Umemoto, K. (1997), ‘A
theory of organisational knowledge creation’, Proceedings of the 7th
International Forum on Technology Management, 3-7 November,
Kyoto, pp. 44-45.