Roadmaps for Technology Strategies in Business

10109 words (40 pages) Dissertation

16th Dec 2019 Dissertation Reference this

Tags: BusinessInformation Technology

Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Dissertation Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com.

  1. Introduction
    1. Background, Motivation
    2. Dissertation Aim and Objectives
    3. Dissertation Structure
  2. Literature Review
    1. Introduction
    2. Corporate-level Technology Strategy / Innovation
      1. Strategic Technology Planning
      2. Roadmapping
        1. History
        2. Type of Roadmaps
        3. Roadmapping process
    3. Integration of Technology Strategy
    4. Diversified Company
    5. Literature Gap and Research Question
    6. Conceptual Framework for Data Collection
  3. Research Methodology
    1. Research Approach
    2. Data Collection
    3. Analysis
    4. Chosen Methodology
    5. Research Methodology Design
  4. Industrial Collaborations
    1. Phase 1: Exploratory
      1. Literature Review
      2. Company Interview
      3. Expert Interview
    2. Phase 2: In Depth Case Studies
      1. Company A
        1. How to use framework
        2. ??
    3. Phase 3: Validating Case Studies
  5. Discussion
    1. Final Framework
    2. Traceable (This part of framework come from where, Reverse Engineer)
  6. Conclusion
  7. References
  8. Appendix

1. Table of Content

Table of Content

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

2. Literature Review

2.1. Roadmap

2.1.1. Conditions necessary for high quality

2.2. Literature Gap and Research Question

3. Integration

3.1. Cross-business Synergies

4. Research Methodology

5. Phase 1: Framework Development

5.1. Literature Review

5.2. Company Interviews

5.3. Expert Interviews

5.4. Framework

5.4.1. WHY? (Expected Outcome)

5.4.2. Process

5.4.3. Data

5.4.4. People

5.4.5. Environment

5.5. TRM Processes

6. Phase 2: Framework Improvement

7. Phase 3: Framework Validation

7.1. Categories of Roadmaps

2. Introduction

2.1. Background

It has been a concern about the possibility of resource scarcity over the decade among every stakeholders from experts to business players (World Economic Forum 2014). Due to limited resources and substantially increasing world population, companies especially in the manufacturing sector has been confronting a significant issue to increase productivity in order to meet growing demand while exploiting fewer resources (Geyer et al. 2003; Foresight 2013; Heck et al. 2014). Efficiently managing resources within the company is one of the most important solutions to reduce the demand for resources and also can generate cost saving for the company (Heck et al. 2014; OECD 2017). However, in a big multi-division company, there is a constraint where duplicate efforts exist.

Technological core competencies play a major role in competitive advantage of many multi-business companies (Mitchell 1986; Christensen 1998; Betz 2011). However, corporation growth leads to dispersal of their technological capabilities all over the group; thus, it is necessary to manage cooperation at the corporate level to avoid parallel efforts and improving synergies (Ayal 1986; Argyres 1995; Christensen 1998).

Competitive advantage of a multi-business diversified company usually is latent in some relationships between different business units (BUs). Prahalad and Hamel (1990) advocate that diversified corporations should not be seen just as a portfolio of discrete businesses but as a collection of competitively important competencies that could be used in different products and markets. Technology may be considered as one of the most important of these competences (Vannoni, 2003). Thus, diversification is not related just to the business portfolio of large corporations but also to their usual multitechnology characteristic (Torrisi and Granstrand, 2004). Although multi-business groups need a comprehensive and overall plan for management of their technological capabilities, there is little research focused on corporate-level technology strategy (Edler et al., 2002Arasti et al., 2010).

3. Literature Review

3.1. Roadmap

A roadmap is a document that describes a future environment, objectives to be achieved within that environment, and plans for how those objectives will be achieved over time (Albright & Kappel 2003; Cosner et al. 2007; Albright 2003)

Roadmaps may have widely varying objectives [4], but should answer a common set of “why-what-how-when” questions to provide an action plan for reaching the objective – all within a common, four part architecture. Within this architecture, structural details are presented for several types of roadmaps, showing how the common format can accommodate a wide range of objectives.

3.1.1. Conditions necessary for high quality

3.2. Literature Gap and Research Question

Knowledge Gaps:

How to select and customize the right TRM process and architecture to meet an organization’s objective? (Vatananan & Gerdsri 2012)

Research Opportunities:

  • Proposing a standard framework to customise TRM process and architecture
  • Determining attitudes of proper key players
  • Designing a key player selection guideline

A multi-business corporation will have related product lines, serving similar markets or using similar technologies in multiple markets. With completed roadmaps, teams may collaborate in cross-roadmap reviews to identify common technology needs where collaboration can yield benefit to both groups, gaps or needs in one development plan that can be met by actions in another, or strengths in one plan that can benefit another. Crossroadmap reviews may be undertaken where the business has multiple horizontal businesses using similar technology to serve multiple markets. In these cases, the primary objective is identification of common needs or strengths that can be applied in multiple businesses. Where the corporation has several businesses arrayed vertically to serve a single market, (for example, where a product line of components is used in a second product line), a crossroadmap review can identify areas for collaboration to create unique competitive advantage for the corporation. Roadmaps also enable databases for use across the corporation. Individual roadmaps contain important data for their product line. When documented in a common format and stored in a database, roadmaps enable corporate planning across the product lines. For example, a database of technologies enables new product lines to incorporate technologies already developed and Figure 6.—A risk roadmap identifies the key risks to successful execution of the roadmap. March—April 2003 39 available. A database of competitive product information and performance targets enables product lines to compare performance and identify potential threats from substitution.

4. Integration

4.1. Cross-business Synergies

Pictur2222e1.png

(Knoll 2008; Martin & Eisenhardt 2001)

(3) Comparison of efficiency and growth synergies (Knoll 2008; Martin & Eisenhardt 2001) While efficiency synergies and growth synergies are both classes of operative synergies, they appear to be largely different phenomena. Figure 3-2 compares their characteristics.

Untitled.jpg

The primary effect of efficiency synergies is reduced costs due to cost subadditivities across businesses, while the primary effect of growth synergies is profitable growth due to valuable revenue superadditivities across businesses. The primary value driver of efficiency synergies is increased operational efficiency from centralizing or transferring similar operative resources across businesses (e.g., shared IT system, transferred best-practice in production). In contrast, the primary value drivers of growth synergies are increased customer utility and innovation from combining resources across businesses to address external market opportunities (e.g., new integrated solution based on components from different businesses). Furthermore, efficiency synergies are rather static as they share common resources over long periods of time (e.g. ongoing sharing of an IT system), whereas growth synergies are rather dynamic as they combine resources to exploit temporary market opportunities (e.g., integration of components into a solution to exploit market opportunities).

While different, cost and revenue synergies are not mutually exclusive. They frequently occur together. For instance, a shared sales force (efficiency synergies) may support the sale of solutions that resulted from combining resources across businesses (growth synergies).

Linkage between Corporate-level Technology Strategy vs Roadmap

The linkage and alignment of technology and overall strategies at BU level is relatively rich in strategy and technology management literatures and scholars have introduced different frameworks, models, and decision tools for this purpose considering positioning or resource-based approaches (Vernet and Arasti, 1999; Chiesa, 2001; Christensen, 2002Pieterse and Pretorius, 2005). Such a linkage at the corporate level is a prerequisite for achieving growth goals (Bellotti, 1994; Hax and Majluf, 1996; Ryan, 1996Berry and Taggart, 1998Zahra et al., 1999; Christensen, 2002; Hipkin, 2004; Lenz, 2004Larsson, 2005). However, few researches have investigated the relationship between diversification of businesses and technologies (Patel and Pavitt, 1997Granstrand et al., 1997).

  • Overall priority of technology and investment rate
  • Corporate’s strategic technology portfolio aligned with corporate’s business portfolio
  • Proper balance between short-term/exploitative and long-term/explorative objectives
  • Mode of technology acquisition
  • Technological collaboration and integration (vertical and/or horizontal)
  • Technology sharing priorities between BUs
  • Directions and policies of technology development
  • Priority of common technologies (shared services and supporting technologies)
  • Intellectual properties protection strategy
  • Organizing technology management all over the corporation
Corporate-level technology strategy content: basic elements A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
Corporate strategic technology portfolio analysis (22, should be in 3) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Mode and Level of technology acquisition (make/buy 22, rout to m&a on TRM) A A A A A A A A A
Priority, rate, and level of investment (22, financial) A A A A A A A
Synergy making and horizontal technology strategy (linking, TRM) A A A A
Organizing of technology management (ISEAP) A A A A A A
Timing (mostly TRM) A A A A A A A A
Level of acquisition (System map) A A A A A A
Integration and technological collaborations (collaborative model) A A
Intellectual properties protection strategy () A
Priority of common technologies (Linking, TRM) A A
Human resource needs A
Corporate-level technology strategy content: basic elements A B C D E F G H I J K L
Corporate strategic technology portfolio analysis A A A A A A A A A A A A
Mode of technology acquisition A A A A A A
Priority, rate, and level of investment A A A A A A
Synergy making and horizontal technology strategy A A A A
Organizing of technology management A A A A A
Timing A A A A A A A
Level of acquisition A A A A A A
Integration and technological collaborations A A
Intellectual properties protection strategy A
Priority of common technologies (shared services and supporting technologies) A A
Human resource needs A
  1. (Suharto & Daim 2013)
  2. (Betz 2011)
  3. (Grienitz & Ley 2007)
  4. (Larsson 2005)
  5. (Pieterse & Pretorius 2012)
  6. (Breschi et al. 2003)
  7. (Christensen 2002)
  8. (Edler et al. 2002)
  9. (Macapanpan 1999)
  10. (Hax 1996)
  11. (Ryan 1996)
  12. (Prahalad 2000)
  13. (Cooper & Edgett 2010)
  14. (Dasgupta 2013)

(Adapted from (Arasti et al. 2016; Arasti et al. 2010; Dasgupta 2013; Cooper & Edgett 2010))

4 Types of Integration:

This situation has been

recognised by (Foden & Berends 2010), who state that management tools are often “presented and used in isolation or without sufficient integration with other tools”. Furthermore, (Phaal et al. 2006)stress that “most management tools cannot be applied in isolation, as they cannot alone address all of the issues in complex management situations. Tools need to be able to link to other tools”.

Picture1.png

(Ayal 1986)

Chandler (1962) and Williamson (1975) discuss the following roles of corporate headquarters in an M-form firm: (1) monitoring divisions’ performances and auditing their activities, (2) allocating resources across divisions on the basis of perceived merit, and (3) strategic planning, notably for acquisitions, divestitures, and ‘long-term investments’.

Not only are important emerging manufacturing research domains intrinsically multidisciplinary, but new science and engineering breakthroughs also have the potential to change the dynamics of competitiveness across and within industries (OECD, 2016).

Solutions to industrial challenges driving productivity and industrial competitiveness will increasingly come from combinations of technologies and involve multiple research domains (OECD, 2016; O’Sullivan, 2011). For example, making next-generation aircraft lighter, quieter and more fuel efficient will require integrated R&D efforts across areas such as high fidelity aerodynamic models, additive machining, advanced composite materials, advanced high-rate airframe production systems, advanced systems integration,advanced batteries and fuel cells, among others (AGP, 2013; NASA, 2016).

awaw.png

(Gerdsri et al. 2009)

aaa.png

(Albright & Nelson 2004)

Dynamics of Technology Roadmap Implementation.png

(Gerdsri et al. 2009)

5. Research Methodology

The research methodology for researching manufacturing strategy comprises three stages (Platts 1993):

  1. Developing the framework;
  2. Evaluating and improving the process by an in-depth case study
  3. Validating the wider applicability of the process across many companies.

Stage 1: Developing the framework

During this phrase, it is of utmost importance to ensure that the framework is properly built based on existing theory.

  1. Literature
  2. Related Companies
  3. Experts

Stage 2: Evaluating  the framework

  1. Involvement of the researcher
    1. Direct Observation: The researcher observes an event without influencing it.
    2. Participant Observation: The researcher participates in the event while adopting 2 roles: a member of the group and an observer who record the processes and behaviour in the group.
    3. Action Research: Not only taking part in the event, the researcher also influences the direction of the activity in the group. He imposes his conceptual
  2. Consistency of the process
  3. Choice of the companies

Management Representations and Approaches: exploring issues surrounding frameworks

(Shehabuddeen et al. 2000)

The following ‘representations’ are concerned with the conceptualisation of management issues.

Representations Definitions

  • System: A system defines a set of bounded interrelated elements with emergent properties and represents it within the context of a paradigm.
  • Framework: A framework supports understanding and communication of structure and relationship within a system for a defined purpose.
  • Map: A map supports understanding of the static relationship between elements of a system. It is a representation of discrete features and not averages.
  • Model: A model supports the understanding of the dynamic interaction between the elements of a system.

The following ‘approaches’ are concerned with practical (applied) problem solving in the management context.

Approaches Definitions

Process: A process is an approach to achieving a managerial objective, through the transformation of inputs into outputs.

Procedure: A procedure is a series of steps for operationalising a process.

Technique: A technique is a structured way of completing part of a procedure.

Tool: A tool facilitates the practical application of a technique.

Management Representations and Approaches in Context.png

(Shehabuddeen et al. 2000)

6. Phase 1: Framework Development

6.1. Literature Review

Enablers for integrating roadmaps

People

Process

  • The technology roadmap conclusions must be implemented (Elliott 2005)
  • Roadmap criteria (Kostoff et al. 2004)
  • Normalization and standardization (Kostoff et al. 2004)
  • Integrate TRM with existing management tools (Lee et al. 2007; Kerr & Phaal 2015)
    • Roadmaps: Deployed to conduct the operations of align and plan
    • Portfolio matrices: Deployed to conduct the operations of prioritise and balance
    • Interlinked grids: Deployed to conduct the operation of plot and weight

Environment

  • Cost (Kostoff et al. 2004)
  • Global data awareness (Kostoff et al. 2004)
  • Company Structure, individual organisational structures (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • It is much easier to launch a roadmapping activity within an existing ‘social infrastructure’ (for example, a industry association). (Phaal 2009)
  • The roadmapping initiative should be clearly linked to broader strategy initiatives (for example, national innovation priorities). (Phaal 2009)
  • A spirit of openness is important, to encourage new participants and thinking throughout the process. (Phaal 2009)
  • The financial aspects need to be clear – generally the costs of such initiatives are shared between the administering and participating organizations. (Phaal 2009)
  • Prior experience (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • IT System (Cosner et al. 2007)

Data

6.4. Framework

Mainly based on the Roadmapping Roadmapping framework which is developed by Dr. Rob Phaal for , and  the integrated technical planning process by Cosner, the framework below was developed with the 5 factors taken into consideration.

The framework was divided into 3 steps: Know-why (purpose), Know-what (delivery), and Know-how (resource). The critical first step is to know why the integrated technical planning is needed. The goals for integration should be established (Cosner et al. 2007; Phaal 2017).  It is crucial to have an agreement on theses goals in order to prevent unplanned growth in scope, which sometimes leads to the failure of the process (Cosner et al. 2007).

Knowing what is the second step. This mainly includes the types of integration, the roadmap format, and principles. The type of integration could help determine the scope of integration.

The last step is to know how.  There are 2 essential elements needed to be considered: Data and People. For data, it is about the existing roadmaps, and all useful information. The content and format for each roadmap should be determined (Cosner et al. 2007). The another element is the people. This is about the stakeholders and factors.

The detailed information for each step will be noted in the following section.

6.4.1. WHY? (Expected Outcome)

Vision and Goals (Phaal et al. 2010; Cosner et al. 2007; (De Laat and McKibbin 2003)):

  • Driving individual business units and functions to think about what will be required for their success beyond the next quarter and the next year. The value is in the process rather than the product. (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • Identify key assumptions (perhaps unspoken) associated with product development and/or R&D plans, and identifying future events that would invalidate elements of the current plans. (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • Flowing top-level strategies and policies down into the corporation. The roadmaps are vehicles for establishing alignment with those strategies and identifying issues that must be addressed to improve synergy across the corporation. (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • Prioritising internal investment proposals and business opportunities by clarifying the relationship between ongoing or proposed internal investments and the revenue opportunities they support. (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • Stabilising and focusing internal investment decisions by linking them to multi-layer roadmaps, rather than relying on an annual zero-based planning approach that may be strangly dependent on the individual personalities in the planning process. (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • Enabling rapid data-driven re-planning in event of internal budget fluctuations or changes in business opportunities by allowing rapid assessment of the impact throughout the corporation from redirecting funds. (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • General business strategy & planning (Phaal & Farrukh 2000)
  • Technology planning initiatives  (Phaal & Farrukh 2000)
  • Communication of technology plans  (Phaal & Farrukh 2000)
  • Justification of technology / R&D investments  (Phaal & Farrukh 2000)
  • Development of new products or services (Phaal & Farrukh 2000)
  • Development of competences, capabilities or skills Risk management (Phaal & Farrukh 2000)
  • Exploration of future business / technology scenarios (Phaal & Farrukh 2000)
  • Improvement of synergy across multiple business units /sites (Phaal & Farrukh 2000)

Objective (Phaal 2017):

  • SMART (Imoh):
    • Specific
    • Measurable
    • Attainable
    • Relevant
    • Time Based

https://www.managers.org.uk/~/media/Files/Campus%20CMI/Checklists%20PDP/Setting%20SMART%20objectives.ashx

Needs (Phaal 2017)

Benefits (Phaal 2017)

Deliverables (Phaal 2017)

Events/ Trigger

Link to Policy & Strategy & Future Actions (Phaal et al. 2010; de Laat & McKibbin 2003; Kostoff et al. 2004)

  • Another factor of equal importance to criteria is the relevance of the roadmap to future actions. Every S&T Roadmap, and associated data, presented in a study or briefing should have a decision focus. It should contribute to the answer of a question, which in turn would be the basis of a recommendation for future action. Roadmaps, which do not perform this function, become an end in themselves, offer no insight, and provide no contribution to decision making.

6.4.2. Process

  • 4 types of integration
    • Within Function:
    • Within BU:
    • Across Function & BU:
    • For Corporate Planning:

  • Principle (More et al. 2015; Kerr et al. 2013)
    • Human-centric (More et al. 2015; Kerr et al. 2013; Cosner et al. 2007):
    • Workshop-based (More et al. 2015; Kerr et al. 2013; Yamashita et al. 2009):
      • Workshop  is suitable for roadmapping because it brings relevant stakeholders together to have interaction through structured activities.
    • Neutrally facilitated (More et al. 2015; Kerr et al. 2013)
      • The facilitator should be neutral by focusing on the process and not involving in the content.
    • Lightly processed (More et al. 2015; Kerr et al. 2013)
      • The process should be avoided of being too depth or too light.
    • Modular (More et al. 2015; Kerr et al. 2013)
      • Modular toolkits are needed to fulfill each activity while building toward the final roadmap.
      • Even though the toolkits should be customised for each activity, the generic forms of the tools are designed to build a consolidated form.
    • Scalable (More et al. 2015; Kerr et al. 2013)
      • The roadmap should be able to be linked across scales at functional level to corporate level.
      • It contains detailed information while is able to communicate high level topics.
    • Visual (More et al. 2015; Kerr et al. 2013; Yamashita et al. 2009; Kostoff et al. 2004)
      • Effective utilization of these sensitivity and parametric variation studies requires that modern roadmaps display techniques using the latest in information technology. Roadmaps are intrinsically node and link attributes covering many dimensions, and any effective display technique requires the capability to traverse many dimensions rapidly and easily. Most present roadmap manifestations are in two-dimensional form, severely limiting portrayal of the complex network dynamics occurring. The Zurcher and Kostoff [39] roadmaps were two-dimensional graphical representations that used a variety of physical display techniques (colors, shadings, line breaks, etc.) to effectively increase the number of dimensions/attributes displayed. To utilize the full display power of present-day technology, computer-based hyper-linked systems are required to display the roadmap dynamics across the fundamental dimensions of cost, performance, risk, and schedule. Additionally, these systems should have the capability to incorporate additional dimensions such as node definitions, node background/ history, coordination of any technology node with other technologies, representation of any technology node in the context of global efforts in related technology development, performers for each technology node, progress/products for each technology node, potential multiple applications of each technology node, funding adequacy of each node, and other attributes and narrative information.(Kostoff et al. 2004)
  • Integrate TRM with existing management tools (Lee et al. 2007; Kerr & Phaal 2015)
    • Roadmaps: Deployed to conduct the operations of align and plan
    • Portfolio matrices: Deployed to conduct the operations of prioritise and balance
    • Interlinked grids: Deployed to conduct the operation of plot and weight

cambridge-roadmapping_rob-phaal.jpg

scalabletoolkitplatform-main.jpg

  • Roadmap Format
  • Others:
    • Finding ways to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the roadmapping process (Lee et al. 2007)
    • The technology roadmap conclusions must be implemented (Elliott 2005)
    • Roadmap criteria (Kostoff et al. 2004)
      • Criteria for roadmap component selection are also required. For retrospective roadmaps, that tend to focus on the critical S&T events that led to successful technologies/systems, the definition of criteria for: ‘‘successful’’ and ‘‘critical’’ is of utmost importance for establishing the credibility of the roadmap. In all roadmaps, it is crucial to define criteria for selecting nodes, quantifying nodes, and quantifying links.
    • Customized solutions (Yamashita et al. 2009)
    • Internet-based groupware (Yamashita et al. 2009)
    • Simulations (Yamashita et al. 2009)
    • Idealized design (Yamashita et al. 2009)
    • Roadmapping is typically an iterative process, benefiting from review after the first roadmap is produced. (Phaal 2009)
    • Outcomes should be monitored, including uptake and impact. (Phaal 2009)

6.4.3. Data

  • Availability
  • Documentation
  • Reliability (Kostoff et al. 2004)
  • Same roadmap format (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • Time Dimension (McMillan 2003)
  • Data security (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • Market requirements (geography, industry and application) (McMillan 2003)
  • Flexibility (Phaal 2009)
    • Roadmapping is inherently exploratory in nature, and so the plan should be flexible to accommodate learning as the process advances.
  • Normalization and standardization (Kostoff et al. 2004)
    • normalization and standardization across different roadmaps, development teams, and S&T areas. For S&T areas that have some similarity, use of common experts (on the development teams) with broad backgrounds, which overlap the disciplines, can provide some degree of standardization. For very disparate S&T areas, some allowances need to be made for the relative strategic value of each discipline to the organization, and arbitrary corrections applied for benefit estimation differences and biases.
  • Taxonomy (Cosner et al. 2007)

6.4.4. People

  • Stakeholders:
    • Idea Champion (Gerdsri et al. 2009)
    • Core Team (Gerdsri et al. 2009)
    • Roadmap Owner/ Manager (Kostoff et al. 2004)
      • The next important factor is the roadmap development manager’s motivation to construct a technically credible and visionary roadmap. The roadmap manager sets the boundary conditions and constraints on the roadmap scope, structures the working groups, and selects the final roadmap elements from myriad inputs. In some organizations, the roadmap manager has the latitude to establish the complete roadmap development process and criteria, and decide on the make-up of roadmap participants with the requisite expertise. (Kostoff et al. 2004)
    • Existing Roadmap Owner ??
    • Operation Team Leader (Gerdsri et al. 2009)
    • Operation Team (Gerdsri et al. 2009)
      • Experts
    • Senior Manager (Kostoff et al. 2004)/ Administrative Authorities and Coordinators  (Yamashita et al. 2009)
  • Factors:
    • Include the right people (Elliott 2005)
    • Decision makers commitment
      • Creating high-level commitment from the start is critical, involving decision makers within companies (and government) throughout the process. (Phaal 2009; Elliott 2005; Kostoff et al. 2004)
      • Senior management (Kostoff et al. 2004): The most important factor is the commitment of the roadmap-developing organization’s senior management with decision authority to high-quality roadmaps, and the associated emplacement of rewards and incentives to encourage such roadmaps. This includes a commitment to a strategic long-term roadmapping process, not just an independent one-time exercise. (Kostoff et al. 2004)
    • There should be a dissemination plan to capitalize and ensure increased participation (Elliott 2005)
    • Competence of roadmap participants (Kostoff et al. 2004; Elliott 2005)
    • Stakeholder-driven (Kostoff et al. 2004)
      • A roadmap should have a clear sense of purpose and ownership for it to be successful. Thus, industry roadmaps are most successful when driven by industry, even if government, universities, and consortia are big players in the process. Likewise, producttechnology roadmaps are best done by those responsible for the outcome (e.g., the product manager). (Kostoff et al. 2004)
    • In order to mobilize participants there must be a sense of ‘urgency’. (Phaal 2009)
    • It is important that momentum is sustained, to keep participants interested and involved. (Phaal 2009) mutual benefit

6.4.5. Environment

  • Cost/ Financial Aspects: (Kostoff et al. 2004; Phaal 2009)
    • An additional critical factor is cost. The true total costs of developing a high quality roadmap with substantial community input can be considerable, but tend to be understated. For high-quality roadmaps, where sufficient expertise is represented on the development team, the major contributor to total costs is the time of all the individuals involved in developing and reviewing the roadmap. With high quality personnel involved in the development and review process, time costs are high, and the total development costs can be non-negligible. (Kostoff et al. 2004)
    • The financial aspects need to be clear – generally the costs of such initiatives are shared between the administering and participating organizations.
  • Global data awareness (Kostoff et al. 2004)
    • A crucial factor is global data awareness. A quality roadmap should include all global S&T projects, developed systems or operations, or events, that are in any way supportive of or related to the overall roadmap objectives. This factor is foundational to S&T investment strategy, and how a program or body of S&T is planned, selected, managed, coordinated, integrated, and transitioned. It is imperative that the latest information technology resources be used to the greatest extent possible during the complete roadmap development process to insure that global S&T resources are being exploited maximally
  • Company Structure, individual organisational structures (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • Easier to launch a roadmapping activity within an existing ‘social infrastructure’ (Phaal 2009)
  • Spirit of openness to encourage new participants and thinking (Phaal 2009)
  • Prior experience (Cosner et al. 2007):
    • If the team has managed the roadmapping process on a smaller scale, it is likely to be easier to extend to a more complexed and wider scale.
  • IT System (Cosner et al. 2007)
  • Roadmapping / Approach generally has to be customised. (Phaal 2009)

7. Phase 2: Framework Improvement

Level of confidence to participate in the process

Knowledge about the process integration/roadmapping

8. Phase 3: Framework Validation

Evaluation.png

1) Rate ease of use for the template you used (i.e. intuitive to use; self-explanatory) on a scale of 1 (low – challenging to use) to 5 (high – easy to use):

2) Rate the degree of completeness achieved in given time (i.e. coverage of the topic in terms of depth & breath) on a scale of 1 (low level of completeness) to 5 (high level):

3) Rate consistency of output (i.e. clarity & coherence of content) on a scale of 1 (low level of consistency) to 5 (high level):

4) Rate quality of output (where’ quality’ = ‘strategically helpful’ in terms of understanding and decision making) on a scale of 1 (low level of quality) to 5 (high level):

5) Please note any comments you have on the experience of using the template you were provided with, highlighting perceived benefits and drawbacks:

Platts, K.W. (1993), ‘A process approach to researching manufacturing strategy’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13 (8), pp. 4-17.

Tool development & testing (questionnaires for participants and facilitators):
Feasibility: can the process be followed?
Usability: how easily can the process be followed?
Utility: is the process helpful?

’Saturation’ – stability / convergence:
Maslen, R and Lewis, M.A. (1994),
‘Procedural action research’,
Working papers in manufacturing,
No. 1, 1994.

(Phaal et al. 2010; de Laat & McKibbin 2003)

awaw.png

(Gerdsri et al. 2009)

TRM Team.png

(Gerdsri et al. 2009)

Idea Champion Hub

Adapted from (Carvalho et al. 2013)

(Amer & Daim 2010; Gerdsri et al. 2009)

  1. Preliminary activity/initiation
  2. Roadmap development
  3. Follow-up-activity/integration

(Daim & Oliver 2008)

  1. Identification of the needs and drivers
  2. Identification of products or services to meet the needs and the drivers
  3. Identification of technologies to support the products or services
  1. Establishment of the linkages among the first three steps above
  2. Developing plans to acquire or develop the technologies
  3. Assign resources to accomplish the plans for acquisition and development

(Lee et al. 2007)

  1. Initiation
  2. Select subject
  3. Assessment of technology needs
  4. Develop technology plan
  5. Implementation
  6. Follow-up activity

(Ma et al. 2006)

  1. Form group
  2. Explain from knowledge coordinators
  3. Description of present situation
  4. Every member’s current status and idealized design
  5. Research schedule and study schedule
  6. Implementation and control

(Phaal et al. 2011)

  1. Environmental scan
  2. Organizational scan
  3. Emergence roadmapping
  4. Collaborative research strategy framework

8.1. Categories of Roadmaps

Based on their purpose, roadmaps could be classified into 8 categories (Farrukh et al. 2003) as below.

  1. Product planning: The connection between technology and manufactured products
  2. Service/ capability planning: Focuses on how technology supports organizational capabilities; more suited to service-based organizations/purposes
  3. Strategic planning Includes a strategic dimension in terms of supporting the evaluation of different opportunities and threats, typically at the business level
  4. Long-range planning Extends the planning time horizon, and is often performed at the sector or national level as a foresight process
  5. Knowledge asset planning Aligns knowledge assets and knowledge management initiatives with business objectives
  6. Programme planning Implementation of strategy more directly related to project planning
  7. Process planning Supports the management of knowledge, focussing on a particular process area
  8. Integration planning Integration and evolution of technology in terms of how different technologies combine within products and systems or to form new technologies

Table 2.1 Classification of roadmaps based on purpose (Phaal, Farrukh, & Probert, 2001b)

ddf.png

(Phaal et al. 2012)

(Albright & Kappel 2003)

(Cosner et al. 2007; Phaal et al. 2012)

(Phaal et al. 2012)

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: