Customization of technology roadmaps according to roadmapping purposes: Overall process and detailed modules

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 567–583

Customization of technology roadmaps according to roadmapping

purposes: Overall process and detailed modules

Sungjoo Lee, Yongtae Park*

Department of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering, Seoul National University, San 56-1,

Shillim-Dong, Kwanak-Gu, Seoul 151-742, South Korea

Received 27 July 2004; received in revised form 18 November 2004; accepted 21 November 2004

Abstract

Recently, technology roadmap has received increasing interest from academics and practitioners alike, as it is a

powerful and inherently flexible approach in terms of architectural structure and construction process. However,

the potential benefit may not be fully exploited due to the difficulty in customizing roadmaps to fit specific needs

and/or to accommodate unusual circumstances. In response, the main purpose of this research is to provide

guidance for customizing roadmaps. Specifically, we adopt a modularization method for mass customization and

suggest a set of different roadmaps for different purposes such as forecasting, planning, and administration. In

addition, a web-based system is developed to facilitate the roadmapping activities, which in turn ensures the

creation, dissemination, and upkeep of roadmaps. With the system having a customization function, a set of

customized roadmaps can be generated simply by selecting the application purpose and then meeting the input

requirements. The function helps prospective users design roadmap formats and contents.

D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Technology roadmap; Customization; Forecasting; Planning; Administration; Web-based system

1. Introduction

Technology roadmap is one of the most widely used methods for supporting the strategic management

of technology. At the industry level, it helps to forecast technological future trends based on either

0040-1625/$ -

doi:10.1016/j.t

* Correspond

E-mail add

see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

echfore.2004.11.006

ing author. Tel.: +82 2 880 8358; fax: +82 2 889 8560.

ress: [email protected] (Y. Park).

S. Lee, Y. Park / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 567–583568

exploratory methods or normative approaches [1–3]. At the corporate level, it provides a graphical

means for exploring and communicating the relationships among markets, products, and technologies

over time [4,5]. Among others, the main advantage of technology roadmap, vis-a-vis traditional

technology management tools, is two-fold. First, it directly links technology to business needs [6].

Second, it has inherent flexibility in terms of its architectural structure and construction process and thus

it can be applied in many different contexts [7]. Accordingly, technology roadmap has received

increasing interest from practitioners and academics alike [8,9]. It was initially developed by Motorola

more than 2 decades ago, from where it has been spread to other firms widely [10]. Nowadays, major

companies, including Lucent Technologies [1,11], Corning [12], Lockheed-Martin [13], and Philips

[14], are utilizing the technique. Moreover, governments and industrial consortia are starting to use it for

supporting sector-level foresight initiatives [2,6,15]. The International Semiconductor [2] or UK

Foresight Vehicles technology roadmaps [16] can be an example of sector-level usage. This popularity of

technology roadmap is also revealed in survey results. In a recent survey of 2000 UK manufacturing

firms, about 10% of companies stated that they have applied the roadmapping approach, with

approximately 80% of them using the technique more than once [17]. Furthermore, many studies have

been conducted to emphasize company experience of roadmapping [10,14,18] or to identify general

roadmapping process [8,11].

Although technology roadmap is a useful and flexible approach, the potential benefit may not be fully

exploited if there is difficulty in customizing to fit specific needs and/or to accommodate unusual

circumstances. In practice, it is very important and even indispensable to flexibly alter the generic

roadmapping process to accommodate firm-specific managerial needs and environmental conditions.

Despite the importance of customization, existing literature has focused on the simplified and common

roadmapping process and little attention has been paid to the customization of technology roadmap.

Moreover, quite naturally, existing commercial software has no capacity to support the customization

function.

In addition, systems that can be used to create, upkeep, and disseminate technology roadmap are

required for its easy introduction and efficient usage. Undoubtedly, having recognized the needs for

supporting tools, several information technology (IT) firms have developed and begun to commercialize

a few systems [19]. However, enterprises, especially small and medium-sized ones, still have difficulties

in applying these systems, as those tools do not take the form of general-purpose software, but rather

fully individualized solutions, so it takes too much time and money to adopt the systems. The balance

between complete standardization and complete personalization is significant for technology roadmap to

be spread widely. The design of specialized software which suggests a standardized roadmapping

process with customization functions in consideration of user needs would, therefore, be quite beneficial.

To this end, conducting research on the customization of technology roadmap is urgently needed and

should be proceeded firstly by the systematic analysis of roadmap architectures and roadmapping

procedures.

In response, the main purpose of the present research is to provide guidance for customizing

technology roadmap, suggesting a set of several roadmap formats according to the purpose of

roadmapping, for which valuable but only appropriate information is provided for a specific

roadmapping purpose. The remaining part of this paper consists of five main sections: 2. Literature

review, 3. Research framework, 4. Customization process, 5. Illustrations of supporting tools, 6.

Conclusions and future research. Following on from a brief literature review to construct a research

framework, a great portion of this paper focuses on the customization process of technology roadmap

S. Lee, Y. Park / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 567–583 569

and specific modules for forecasting, planning, and administration, along with several illustrations of

supporting tools. The paper closes with concluding remarks.

2. Literature review

2.1. Concept of technology roadmap

Roadmaps are defined as the views of a group of stakeholders as to how to get where they want to go

to achieve their desired objective [20]. It is an extended look at the future of a chosen field of inquiry

composed of the collective knowledge and imagination of the brightest drivers of change in that field

[2,3]. With regard to the concept of roadmap, technology roadmap can take various meanings. Kostoff

and Schaller refer technology roadmap to a visual aid which crystallizes the links between research

programs, development programs, capability targets, and requirements [2]. For Rinne, it is a map of the

unfolding evolution of technologies and the products that implement them [21]. The term dtechnologyroadmapT is widely used, but there is no standard meaning or exact definition as shown above. Due to it,

variations exist among users regarding exactly what technology roadmap and technology roadmapping

entails. In fact, dtechnologyT is often only one aspect of a roadmap, and the approach may be more

generally termed dbusinessT, dstrategicT, or dinnovationT roadmapping, although dtechnology road-

mappingT has become the dominant phrase [5]. So, in this research, contents of technology roadmap

cover both future and present, and both product and technology, only if it can help a group of

stakeholders make sure that the right capabilities are in the right place at the right time to achieve their

desired objective. Furthermore, different literature has presented the term dtechnology roadmapT in

different ways, such as dtechnology roadmapT, dtechnology road mapT, just droadmapT, or dTRMT in an

abbreviated form. Among them, the most common expressions dtechnology roadmapT and droadmapT areused together in this paper.

2.2. Typology of technology roadmap

A large number of studies suggest that roadmapping can be performed at either of two levels, industry

or corporate [1,2,6,22]. Sometimes the use of roadmapping can be extended to its supply chain by

linking its divisional roadmaps into a dmeta roadmapT that is used to communicate with customers and

suppliers [19]. At each level, the roadmapping process and roadmap types would differ [6,22].

The general roadmap is a multi-layered and time-based chart [23]. But various types of roadmaps have

been utilized [5,7,24] and exiting literature has attempted to classify them into several categories. One of

the most common categorizations is provided by Sandia National Laboratories. They define three types of

roadmaps comprising product technology roadmap, issues-oriented roadmap, and emerging technology

roadmap [22]. Albright and Kappel insist that four sections–market, product, technology, and action plan–

should be considered to construct roadmaps, in which lots of roadmap templates are introduced covering

product evolution, product roadmap, technology roadmap, risk roadmap, and action strategy [11]. Phaal et

al. examined a set of approximately 40 technology roadmaps and then clustered them into 16 broad areas

[7]. Furthermore, at least a dozen different applications of roadmaps were presented in a 1998 Technology

Roadmap Workshop, which can be classified broadly into four groups including science and technology

roadmaps, industry technology roadmaps, corporate or product-technology roadmaps, and product/


portfolio management roadmaps according to their applications and objectives [25]. Finally, Kappel

suggests roadmapping taxonomy based on roadmapping purpose and roadmap emphasis. As a result, a

large number of roadmaps are divided into four groups, which are science technology roadmap, product

technology roadmaps, industry roadmaps, and product roadmaps [1].

2.3. Usage of technology roadmap

Technology roadmap can be used in many areas, such as physical and service product planning [26],

development of product family tree [14], and program planning [22]. Albright and Kappel state that

technology roadmaps in the corporate setting are used to define the plan for the evolution of a product,

linking business strategy to the evolution of the product features [11]. By Phaal et al., the main role of

technology roadmap is to support technology management and planning [7]. It can present a framework

to help plan and coordinate technology developments [27,28]. Furthermore, many other approaches

having planning dimension, such as scenario planning, backcasting are closely related to technology

roadmaps [1,29,30].

Technology roadmaps are rather similar to forecasting, foresight, futures etc. [1,31–33]. Quite often,

technology forecasting is incorporated to a roadmapping activity, which implies the fact that technology

roadmap is used as a tool for technology forecasting [34]. Garcia and Bray insist that roadmapping

provides a mechanism to help experts forecast science and technology developments in targeted areas

[27]. Barker and Smith describe a unique approach to technology foresight based on the use of roadmaps

[18]. Saritas and Oner emphasize that it is possible to capture, manipulate, and manage information to

decrease complexity in the foresight by constructing roadmaps [35].

Furthermore, technology roadmap helps focus the portfolio and business planning process of the

corporation on the future and provide consistent information across the portfolio to aid in decision-

making, which brings a significant improvement in administration of technologies and products in the

corporation [11]. It means that the main objective of roadmapping can be the administration, as

emphasized by Kostoff and Schaller [2].

To sum up, technology roadmaps have been used as a management tool for planning, forecasting, and

administration. Recently, it is expanding its application areas toward new product development process

[19], knowledge management [36], and even virtual innovations [21]. Furthermore, although traditional

roadmapping approaches were limited to the sustaining technologies, roadmaps for disruptive

technology are proposed [37,38].

2.4. Technology roadmapping process

Most studies on roadmapping process are self-reported descriptions of a certain corporation’s

experience or identification of general roadmapping process [39] in which there exist two main issues.

The first issue is about the development of roadmapping software. So often, roadmapping gets done in

person on paper [1,5] and, in that case, it is difficult to update technology roadmaps as events unfold. In

fact, the difficulty in maintaining roadmaps is often cited as a major obstacle to their effective use [24].

To solve the problem, current roadmapping efforts heavily use computer-based graphical techniques,

conveying information to their users and providing constructs for their developers [37]. As a result,

roadmaps are often PowerPoint or Visio drawings, but they are still difficult to manipulate and maintain.

Actually, simple word processing, spreadsheet, and graphics packages may give satisfaction to users for


the initial development of a roadmap, but more sophisticated software would be beneficial if the process

is to be taken forward. Petrick and Echols touch on how software-based roadmapping efforts can

transform company R&D investment and new product development planning [19]. Brown and O’Hare

suggest that when the need to re-use common components such as external drivers or specific

technology developments across different maps is recognized, a flexible software tool would be the best

way to capture, manage and maintain components, and allow re-uses [36]. Along with aforementioned

discussions on expected values from utilizing roadmapping software, the practical needs for professional

roadmapping software are beginning to come out. In a recent survey of roadmapping software, 65% of

respondents stated that specialized roadmapping software could help overcome the problem caused by

the lack of roadmapping tools, techniques, and methods [40]. To respond to the existing needs,

commercial roadmapping software systems are starting to appear [7]. For instance, Honeywell

technology roadmapping utilizes Geneva Vision Strategiest software to digitally capture technology

projects, components, subassemblies, and the timing of these developments to support products [19].

This software may help support the development, storage, dissemination, and upkeep of roadmaps. It

also forces individual roadmaps to be documented in a common format and stored in a database, which

enables corporate planning across the product lines [11]. However, since existing software takes the form

of solutions, it takes much time and cost to use it on the contrary to the survey results that two factors

including dsoftware costT and dease of useT would most influence a firm in whether or not to adopt

roadmapping software [40].

The second issue includes applying roadmapping approach to suit a particular environment, namely,

customizing roadmaps. One of the reasons why companies struggle with the application of roadmapping

is that there are many specific forms of roadmaps, which often have to be tailored to the specific needs of

the corporation and its business context [7]. Although most studies are describing the flexibility of

technology roadmapping approach, only limited efforts have been directed towards customization

problem. A few studies have tried to identify customizable factors for roadmapping process in terms of

planning, architecture, and process [5]. But still, existing research hardly gives direct answer to the

question–how to customize the roadmapping approach–and corporations are lacking in concrete

principles for customization.

3. Research framework

3.1. Customization methodology

Customization addresses differences among products or services. An important step towards this goal

will be the development and proliferation of design repositories that are capable of creating various

customized products or services [41]. This results in the continuous accretion of variety and thus seems

to contradict the pursuit of low cost and high efficiency. As a solution, recently, many innovative

companies are experimenting with a strategy of mass customization which may ensure the low-cost

production of high variety. Companies that can no longer count on the stability of demand nor continue

to control their markets are not able to realize the efficiencies and economies of scale of mass production

and thus try to adopt mass customization as an alternative. Just like mass customization in products and/

or services, a similar concept can be applied to the roadmapping approach. Although complete

personalization gives the greatest satisfaction to users, it cannot assure the efficiencies and the economies


of scale for both users and service providers of roadmapping. On the other hand, complete

standardization fails to satisfy any user since user requirements for roadmapping in particular differ

greatly from each other according to environmental conditions. But it ensures easy utilization for users

and efficient for service providers. A similar concept to mass customization can preserve the balance

between standardization and personalization pursuing both high satisfaction and high efficiency for

utilizing technology roadmap.

Joseph suggested five methods of implementing mass customization by two dimensions [42]. One is

the degree of organizational transformation and the other is the degree of market turbulence. With the

increase of each dimension, stages of mass customization are distinguished by (1) customized services,

(2) embedded customizability, (3) creating point-of-delivery customization, (4) providing quick

response, and (5) modularization. Among them, it seems that the final stage, the best method for

achieving full mass customization, is the most suitable for customization of technology roadmap since

the fact that the roadmap formats being utilized are diverse and the roadmapping process is flexible

implicates the highest degree of market turbulence. While the fifth stage of customization is the

modularization of components when applied to manufacturing goods, it can apply equally effectively to

technology roadmap. This was proposed by Chen et al. [43] who suggested designing flexible products

or services that can be readily adapted in response to large changes in customer requirements by

changing a small number of components [44]. In this research, standardized formats of roadmap are

designed to perform as components and the purpose of roadmapping is used as a basis for customization

since roadmap formats are usually determined by the managerial usage [7]. Therefore, several standard

roadmap formats are defined and some among them are selected to organize a set of formats for a

specific roadmapping purpose to realize modularizing customization.

3.2. Customization framework

To begin with, the overall framework for customization is presented in Fig. 1. The task of the

aforementioned customization is to compose a set of different roadmaps for different purposes.

Therefore, the overall process of this research consists of three phases—(1) classification, (2)

standardization, and (3) modularization.

First, in the classification phase, diverse objectives and various representation methods for technology

roadmap are examined to construct a classification scheme. Second, in the standardization phase, eight

standardized roadmap formats are proposed since commonality is an important design practice

Fig. 1. Overall framework of customization.


highlighted for customization [41], or standardization with flexibility is emphasized as a means of

enhancing product or service flexibility and offering a wide variety of products or services [44].

Furthermore, normalization and standardization across different roadmaps or different development teams

are important factors for roadmaps to be used as a basis for comparison of R&D program or product

planning etc. [2,38]. Besides, the job of standardization is a prerequisite not only to customization itself

but also to the design of supporting tools for technology roadmapping. Finally, in the modularization

phase, in accordance with the specific purposes of mapping, diverse roadmap templates are proposed.

4. Customization process

4.1. Classification phase

In this phase, the possible types of technology roadmap are examined and the principal purposes of

roadmapping are defined to develop the classification scheme. Basically, the following two dimensions

are taken into account to achieve this. The first dimension is the functional purpose of technology

roadmap in terms of managerial usage and the second is the field of technology roadmap with respect to

the concrete object of mapping.

The review of literature indicates that technology roadmap is designed and developed for the

following three uses: forecasting, planning, and administration. First, the similarity of roadmapping and

forecasting are the most obvious. The purpose of technology forecasting for a firm is to promote and

enable good technological decision-making rather than making accurate forecasts [9,45]. Roadmapping

immediately appears to be the most similar to forecasting the future technological trends. Second,

roadmapping has a noticeable planning dimension. Many roadmapping practitioners use technology

roadmap to extend their perspective beyond the typical quarterly or next release horizon [1]. Prospective

technology roadmap looks forward from the present and uses expert opinions from different areas of the

business to create a future view in terms of both future R&D and product planning [2,19,27,36]. Finally,

roadmapping can be an effective administration tool for improving communication and enabling

corporate-level views not being limited to only a product line-level or an individual team-level [11].

As for the second dimension, the concrete object of mapping is applied to construct the roadmap

taxonomy. Common structure of technology roadmap is composed of two elements, layers as vertical

axis and timeframe as horizontal axis [1,5]. Although there are a large number of options in selecting

contents of layer, product and technology layers are the most essential [5,21]. Therefore, the following

two objects are suggested in this research: product and technology. While they serve as the major criteria

for classifying diverse roadmap types, two additional attributes are also employed not only for

classification but also for the basis of standardization. The first attribute is the information source since

how to get or where to get the information which will be put on the roadmap is the most important issue

for the company. This attribute is dichotomized into internal and external depending on the domain of

information-collection or data-analysis. The second attribute is the time frame which is regarded as one

of the most significant elements of technology roadmap. The temporal dimension is explicitly shown on

most roadmaps and, strictly speaking, the concept of roadmap suggests time dimension. But information

in a specific point may be valuable for achieving main roadmapping purposes, and so, a dsnapshot ofroadmapT in an exact expression shall be called just dmapT and is considered in designing standardized

roadmaps. Therefore, this attribute is divided into either static or dynamic in accordance with the horizon

Table 1

Managerial usages, object of mapping, and two attributes of roadmap

Managerial usages Forecasting Forecast of future technology trend in general [1]

Planning

Project Plan for future R&D based on internal and external analysis [7]

Product Plan for future product based on internal and external analysis [11]

Administration Management of current R&D portfolio and product portfolio [2]

Objective of mapping Product Support of strategic decision-making related to product

Technology Support of strategic decision-making related to technology

Additional attributes Information source Domain of information-collection or data-analysis

Time frame Scope of time covered in the roadmap as horizon of mapping


of mapping. Table 1 describes the details of two dimensions with two additional attributes determining

roadmap types.

4.2. Standardization phase

In this phase, one way to standardize roadmaps based on the classification scheme in the prior phase is

proposed, as shown in Table 2.

Here, based on the different combinations of attributes, four kinds of roadmaps for product are

suggested: product family map, product planning roadmap, product driver map, and product evolution

roadmap. While the product family map shows the entire product platform being produced at the present

time [7,11,14,46], the product planning roadmap exhibits the future plans for product introduction in a

specific platform or a product family over time [1,5,7,11]. Meanwhile, the product driver map interprets a

product in a market view, linking customer needs to product drivers which are tangible measures to

evaluate products [11]. The product evolution roadmap shows the changing features of customer needs

and thus it will be used as a basis for grasping the market situation [11]. Furthermore, it should be linked

to the product planning roadmap since customer needs are at the core of planning the next version product.

In the same way, depending on the mix of attributes, four kinds of roadmaps for technology are

suggested: technology portfolio map, technology prospect roadmap, technology position map, and

technology trend map. Technology portfolio in general is a two-dimensional map on which

technologies are positioned by any criteria to support decision-making [47]. Although many kinds of

the technology portfolio map can be designed, we suggest one based on technological coverage and

technological importance. As a vertical axis, the number of related product is used as a proxy of

technological coverage since consideration of product is very important in a point of product

Table 2

Standardized roadmaps for product and technology

Object of mapping Product Technology

Attributes (time frame, information source)

Static Internal Product family map [46] Technology portfolio map [47]

External Product driver map [11] Technology position map [25]

Dynamic Internal Product planning roadmap [7] Technology prospect roadmap [25]

External Product evolution roadmap [11] Technology trend roadmap [22]

Fig. 2. Standardized roadmaps for product and technology. (a) Product family map [46]; (b) product planning roadmap [7]; (c)

product driver map [11]; (d) product evolution roadmap [11]; (e) technology portfolio map [47]; (f) technology prospect

roadmap [25]; (g) technology position map [25]; (h) technology trend roadmap [22].



technology [48–51]. A horizontal axis captures the importance of technology, which is the most

common basis on technology portfolio [48]. Excluding cases of disruptive technology and strategic

issues, one way firms often review the importance of a single technology is the weighted average of

its importance in associated product portfolio, since products derived from a single technology are

likely to differ in terms of competitive position and market segment growth [48]. Therefore, it may be

calculated by the following formula, in which the parametric value is either judged by an expert or

estimated by a proxy measure.

Box 1The importance of technology j in a corporation=Ri (the relative importance of product i in a

corporation) 5 (the relative importance of technology j in product i)

Technologies related to a specific product or product platform, significantly supporting product drivers,

are shown in the technology prospect roadmap, which is the centerpiece of most roadmaps [11,25]. The

technology position map provides information on the technological strength and weakness of a

corporation as compared to competitors [25], which is significant for R&D decisions [47,48]. Similar to

the technology portfolio map, technologies related to the business are positioned by the technological

importance and technological strength in the technology position map. Here, to calculate the degree of

technological strength, large number of parameters can be used, such as a number of patents, new product

introductions, peer ranking, and number of publications [47]. Finally, the contents and trends of emerging

or declining technologies having no connection with a specific product are identified in technology trend

roadmap [1,22,25]. The standardized roadmap formats are visually presented in Fig. 2.

4.3. Modularization phase

The range of strategic context that roadmapping can be applied to is large [1,10,11,14,52] and the

strategic context can be described in terms of a number of dimensions, including the organizational

goals, past history, existing processes, and available information [5]. Among these, utilization purpose is

selected as customization criteria since roadmap architectures usually are differentiated by the utilization

purpose [1,24,53]. Therefore, in this phase, the eight maps derived in the standardization phase are

matched to the three main purposes identified in the classification phase.

Table 3

Relationship between application purpose and attributes

Managerial usage

(application purpose)

Object of mapping Additional attributes

Technology Product Time frame Information source

Technology Product

Forecasting Much None Long-term Internal external

Planning

Product Rather Much Long-term External Internal external

Project Much Rather Long-term Internal external External

Administration Rather Rather Short-term Internal external Internal external

Table 4

Case-wise guideline for modularization

Application purpose (Managerial usage) Forecasting Planning Administration

Roadmap types Product Project

Product Product family map X O X O

Product planning roadmap X O O X

Product driver map X O X O

Product evolution roadmap X O X X

Technology Technology portfolio map X X O O

Technology prospect roadmap O O O X

Technology position map X X O O

Technology trend roadmap O X O X


4.3.1. Matching criteria

For customization, the application purpose of technology roadmap and related attributes are matched,

as exhibited in Table 3. For instance, dforecastingT in our research implies dforecasting future technology

trends in generalT as presented in Table 1. Therefore, future information for forecasting requires long-

term analysis. In terms of object, the consideration of technology is essential whereas the incorporation

of product is not worth deliberation. Moreover, results from both internal and external analyses are

valuable to gain abundant information about the technology.

4.3.2. Customized roadmaps

Based on the analysis of the relationship, a case-wise guideline for customization is derived, as

summarized in Table 4. For example, the table signifies that long-term analysis in technology is of

significance in forecasting. Then, among the four roadmaps for technology described in Table 2, only

dynamic analysis is useful. Consequentially, the technology prospect roadmap and the technology trend

roadmap are suitable and necessary for the forecasting module. For product planning, long-term analysis

for product, based on information from both external and internal sections of the firm, is essential. In

addition, long-term analysis of the general trend of technology, which is related to the products being

planned, is required. Therefore, all roadmaps for product and the technology prospect roadmap will

compose the product planning module. The project planning and administration modules can be

designed in a similar manner. As a result, three kinds of module, which are actually four kinds, can be

designed for the customization of roadmaps.

5. Illustrations of supporting tools

5.1. System design

A supporting tool for roadmapping is designed to overcome the deficiency of customization function

in existing software programs. A web-based system is developed utilizing Active Server Pages (ASP)

and MS-SQL since the web characteristics may facilitate information sharing within a company [54].

Furthermore, the use of roadmapping can be easily extended to its supply chain by applying web

technology [19]. IT has not played a significant role in most roadmapping efforts until now, but an


attempt to put the roadmap on-line would be meaningful. To be applied to the system, data on the virtual

enterprise which manufactures wireless handsets were created and especially the data on technology

forecasts were acquired from www.alberightstrategy.com.

5.2. System implementation

The system has three main menus: (1) Database, (2) Roadmap Creation, and (3) Roadmap Retrieval.

dDatabaseT menu is used to gather the data on technological future trends and/or to gain the basic

information on products and technologies. The genuine implementation task largely involves creating

and retrieving the roadmaps created before using the remaining two menus.

5.2.1. Roadmap creation

Roadmaps are built with the tool through the following activities. First, the user decides whether to

use the customization function or not. If the submenu of dGeneralT in dRoadmap CreationT is selected,eight types of roadmap are described and the selection of type is up to the user. On the other hand,

dWizardT helps the user to select appropriate types of roadmap for his/her application purpose based on

the customization framework in our research. Two main Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs), one for

general roadmapping and the other for customized roadmapping, are shown in Fig. 3a and b. If dWizardTis selected and the application purpose is determined, then data required to build a specific roadmap

template should be inputted. In addition, information on product drivers, related technologies, and their

importance for a specific product platform is provided for the system. Therefore, beyond the purpose of

building roadmaps, the tool enables the creation of a systematic database of product features and

evolution, technologies, and changing environments. The information can be updated easily when

necessary and can be managed by a different version.

After the user has inputted the necessary information, clicking the dCreationT button will end the

building process. Fig. 3c serves as an illustration of building roadmaps for wireless handsets from 2002

to 2006. The outcome was obtained by selecting the dForecastingT module and, as mentioned before, the

technology prospect roadmap and the technology trend roadmap were constructed. Here, the

standardized technology prospect roadmap is presented since it was selected from the drop-down box

on the left-upper side of the site, after which the dViewT button besides the box was clicked. The

standardized technology trend roadmap can be shown in the same way. These maps convey in text color

and/or text style the valuable information on the technologies.

5.2.2. Roadmap retrieval

Roadmaps are referenced in dRoadmap RetrievalT to which the customization concept can be applied as

well. Searching roadmap is conducted through a series of selection processes. First, a specific product

platform of interest is selected from the platforms within a firm’s business scope which are aligned by the

name. After the time period to be retrieved is determined, the titles of possible roadmap format are listed,

which means that those types of roadmap for a given period have been created before. The user may

choose either roadmap types or roadmapping purpose, which stands for the aim for retrieval at this time.

Fig. 3d displays the GUIs for selecting roadmaps to be retrieved, which is similar to Fig. 3a and b. As

we have built the roadmaps of wireless handsets from 2002 to 2006 for the purpose of dforecastingT anddproduct planningT in this research, only six kinds of roadmaps are allowed to be selected. Fig. 3e and f

show the final results of checking the product planning roadmap and the product evolution roadmap and

http://www.alberightstrategy.com

Fig. 3. Main GUIs of the roadmapping software.


then clicking dSubmitT button. While the long-term plan for wireless handsets is drawn on the product

planning roadmap, the market trend inferred from the product plan, especially from the transition of the

target product driver, is described in the product evolution roadmap. In Fig. 3f, the market for wireless

handsets is expected to evolve from high performance of basic functions to cost efficiency and finally to

extra functionality. The alteration of roadmap types or time period to be retrieved is easily achieved with

the system.


5.3. System benefits

Although many firms recognize the strategic importance of roadmapping, it is adopted by only a few

since the rest do not know how to start it. Roadmapping system is developed to help them, which

contributes to an automatic and customized generation of roadmaps and company-wide sharing of them.

The benefit comes to three sides, easy creation, dissemination, and upkeep of roadmaps.

Firstly, this system ensures easy creation of roadmaps as simple data input required by the system

leads to a complete development of roadmaps. During the process, a set of roadmaps, providing useful

information to obtain a particular purpose, is suggested and created simply by selecting an application

purpose and then meeting the input requirements. Therefore, it helps user design roadmap formats and

contents according to a roadmapping purpose.

Secondly, web-based characteristics of the system may promote roadmap dissemination. Since

members in a corporation can retrieve any roadmaps at any time through the system, it guarantees easy

access to the roadmap information and thus facilitates information-sharing within the corporation.

Setting up the access authority is a later consideration. In addition, the use of roadmapping can be easily

extended to its supply chain by linking divisional roadmaps to each other via the system. The benefit to

the entire network is immediate, because of the reduction in uncertainty involved in timing of product

launches and possible volumes of production needed to support them. Sometimes, it will be quite helpful

for idea generation or product planning during new product development processes for both suppliers

and customers [19].

Finally, we can keep roadmap alive. Recently, upkeep of roadmap is getting more important for

successful roadmapping as product life cycle is shortened, technology development advances rapidly,

and thus frequent update of roadmap is required. If roadmapping is done by person on a paper, the whole

body of roadmap should be regenerated even when only a part of it is to be changed. And yet, simple

change of data updates the roadmap automatically and conveniently when the system is used. Besides,

duplication of effort in updating roadmaps can be minimized when change of technology database

comes to change of all related roadmaps through the system. In that case, data consistency is guaranteed

as well.

6. Conclusions and future research

Although roadmapping has been practiced by many organizations for decades, the diffusion process

remains relatively slow since the excessive degree of flexibility sometimes makes a firm hesitate to adopt

the approach. As a solution, this research has reviewed various roadmap types practically used in

corporations by analyzing the common managerial usages for roadmap and has suggested a framework

for customizing roadmaps to achieve good balance between full personalization and full standardization.

Modularization was adopted as the customization method, and so, after eight types of standardized

roadmaps were suggested, customized roadmap templates were designed consisting of three modules:

forecasting, planning, and administration. Furthermore, a web-based system having a customization

function was developed to support the easy creation, dissemination, and upkeep of roadmap. With the

customization function, a set of roadmaps, providing useful information to obtain a particular purpose,

was created simply by selecting an application purpose and then meeting the input requirements which

will be the basis of the roadmaps. Users do not need to worry about designing the appropriate roadmap


formats and contents, which may be mostly beyond their capacity. In addition, the use of the

customization function enables concentrated management of information.

Despite its significant and meaningful contribution, however, the current research is subject to some

limitations. First, the proposed framework is rather incomplete because market-related attributes and

variables are not adequately addressed. The market layer should be incorporated into the framework for

roadmap to link business and technology more properly. Second, the basis and level of customization

needs to be extended and/or elaborated. Particularly, industry characteristics may affect the roadmap

formats since differences in product architectures and technological roles of the industry may cause

differences in roadmap architectures. It could be quite practical for users to primarily customize roadmap

by industry. Nevertheless, in this case the degree of customization is increased with approaching

personalization and at the cost of standardization. Therefore, future research should focus on additional

customization methods, for example, industry characteristics and/or user groups could be considered or

the application purpose could be subdivided into more detailed ones for further customization.

Finally, there is room for further work in terms of a visualization method for high-quality roadmaps.

The architectural structure of standardized roadmaps needs to be elaborated to construct better

combinations of information and to communicate them in a more efficient manner. With the elaboration

of visualization methods, the supporting tools can be improved as well.

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the National Research Lab (NRL) program of the Ministry of Science

and Technology of Korea.

References

[1] T.A. Kappel, Perspectives on roadmaps: how organizations talk about the future, Product Innovation Management 18 (1)

(2001) 39–50.

[2] R.N. Kostoff, R.R. Schaller, Science and technology roadmaps, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 8 (2)

(2001) 132–143.

[3] R. Galvin, Science roadmaps, Science 280 (1998) 803.

[4] J.J. McCarthy, D.J. Haley, B.W. Dixon, Science and Technology Roadmapping to Support Project Planning, Proceedings

of the PICMET’01, Portland, 2001.

[5] R. Phaal, C.J. Farrukh, J.F. Mills, D.R. Probert, Customizing the Technology Roadmapping Approach, Proceedings of the

PICMET’03, Portland, 2003.

[6] R.C. McCarthy, Linking technological change to business needs, Research Technology Management 46 (2) (2003) 47–52.

[7] R. Phaal, C.J. Farrukh, D.R. Probert, Technology roadmapping—a planning framework for evolution and revolution,

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71 (1–2) (2004) 5–26.

[8] O.H. Bray, M.L. Garcia, Technology Roadmapping: The Integration of Strategic and Technology Planning for

Competitiveness, Proceedings of the PICMET’97, Portland, 1997.

[9] J.P. Martino, Technological Forecasting For Decision Making, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003.

[10] C.H. Willyard, C. McClees, Motorola’s technology roadmap process, Research Management 30 (5) (1997) 13–19.

[11] R.E. Albright, T.A. Kappel, Roadmapping in the corporation, Research Technology Management 46 (2) (2003) 31–40.

[12] J. Morone, Winning in High Tech Markets, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1993.

[13] J. Houston, J. Turner, Developing Collaborative Solutions to the Aging Aircraft Avionics Problem Through Technology

Roadmapping, Lockheed-Martin JS01 June, 4–6, 2001.


[14] P. Groenveld, Roadmapping integrates business and technology, Research Technology Management 40 (5) (1997) 48–55.

[15] A.L. Porter, A.T. Roper, T.W. Mason, R.A. Rossini, J. Banks, Forecasting of Management and Technology, Wiley, New

York, 1991.

[16] R. Phaal. Foresight Vehicle Technology Roadmap—Technology and Research Directions for Future Road Vehicle. URN

02/933, UK Department of Trade and Industry, London, 2002. Available at: http://www.foresightvehicle.org.uk.

[17] C.J. Farrukh, R. Phaal, D.R. Probert, Industrial Practice in Technology Planning—Implications for a Useful Tool

Catalogue for Technology Management, Proceedings of the PICMET’01, Portland, 2001.

[18] D. Barker, D. Smith, Technology foresight using roadmaps, Long Range Planning 28 (2) (1995) 21–28.

[19] I.J. Petrick, A.E. Echols, Technology roadmapping in review: a tool for making sustainable new product development

decisions, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71 (1–2) (2004) 81–100.

[20] D. Probert, M. Radnor, Technology roadmapping, Research Technology Management 46 (2) (2003) 27.

[21] M. Rinne, Technology roadmaps: infrastructure for innovation, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71 (1–2)

(2004) 67–80.

[22] Sandia National Laboratories: Fundamentals of Technology Roadmapping. Available at: http://www.sandia.gov/Roadmap/

home.htm#what02.

[23] EIRMA: Technology Roadmapping: Delivering Business Vision. Working Group Report 52, European Industrial Research

Association, Paris, 1997. Available at: http://www.cirma.asso.fr.

[24] R. Phaal, C.J.P. Farrukh, D.R. Probert, Characterization of Technology Roadmaps: Purpose and Format, Proceedings of

the PICMET’97, Portland, 2001, pp. 367–374.

[25] R. Albright, R. Schaller, Taxonomy of roadmaps, Proceeding of Technology Roadmap Workshop, Office of Naval

Research, Washington, DC, 1998.

[26] H.E. Hulshoff, J.J. Kirchhoff, B.A. Kirchhoff, S.T. Walsh, F.M.J. Westhof, bNew servicesQ strategic study and exploratory

survey of a dynamic phenomenon, EIM Small Business Research, Zoetermeer, Netherlands, 1998.

[27] M.L. Garcia, O.H. Bray, Fundamentals of Technology Roadmapping, Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM, 1998

(Mar.), SAND97-0665.

[28] D. Probert, N. Shehabuddeen, Technology roadmapping: a tool for the formulation of technology strategy, International

Journal of Technology Management 17 (6) (1999) 646–661.

[29] G. Ringland, Scenario Planning–Managing For the Future, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1998.

[30] K.H. Deborg, Essence of backcasting, Future 28 (9) (1996) 813–828.

[31] B. Twiss, Forecasting for Technologists and Engineers, Peter Peregrinus, Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, 1992.

[32] B.R. Martin, R. Johnston, Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system—experiences from Britain,

Australia, and New Zealand, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 60 (1999) 37–54.

[33] P. Dussauge, S. Hart, B. Ramanantsoa, Strategic Technology Management—Integrating Product Technology into Global

Business Strategies for the 1990s, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1994.

[34] B.A. Vojak, F.A. Chambers, Roadmapping disruptive technical threats and opportunities in complex, technology-based

subsystems: the SAILS methodology, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71 (1–2) (2004) 121–139.

[35] O. Saritas, M.A. Oner, Systemic analysis of UK foresight results: joint application of integrated management model and

roadmapping, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71 (1) (2004) 2–65.

[36] R. Brown, S. O’Hare, The Use of Technology Roadmapping as an Enabler of Knowledge Management, vol. 7, Institution

of Electrical Engineers, 2001, pp. 1–6.

[37] S.T. Walsh, Roadmapping a disruptive technology: a case study the emerging microsystems and top-down nanosystems

industry, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71 (1–2) (2004) 161–185.

[38] R.N. Kostoff, R. Boylan, G.R. Simons, Disruptive technology roadmaps, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71

(1–2) (2004) 141–159.

[39] R. Phaal, C.J.P. Farrukh, D.R. Probert, T-Plan: The Fast-start to Technology Roadmapping—Planning your Route to

Success, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 2001.

[40] S. Lupini, Roadmapping Software Survey Report. White paper, Cambridge University, 21st June 2002. Available at:

http://www.strateva.com/resources/whitepapers.htm.

[41] J. Jiao, Q. Ma, M.M. Tseng, Towards high value-added products and services: mass customization and beyond,

Technovation 23 (10) (2003) 809–821.

[42] P.B. Joseph, Mass-customizing products and services, Planning Review (1993 July/August) 6–14.

http://www.foresightvehicle.org.uk

http://www.sandia.gov/Roadmap/home.htm#what02

http://www.cirma.asso.fr

http://www.strateva.com/resources/whitepapers.htm


[43] W. Chen, D. Rosen, J. Allen, F. Aistree, Modularity and the independence of functional requirements in designing

complex systems, in: R. Gadh (Ed.), Concurrent Product Design, vol. 74, ASME, 1994, pp. 31–38.

[44] M.Uzumeri, S. Sanderson, A framework formodel and product family competition, Research Policy 24 (4) (1995) 583–607.

[45] H.D. Cho, J.K. Lee, K.K. Ro, Environment and technology strategy of firms in government R&D programmes in Korea,

Technovation 16 (10) (1996) 553–560.

[46] K.T. Ulrich, S.D. Eppinger, Product Design and Development, McGraw Hill/Irwin, New York, 2003.

[47] B. Petrov, The advent of the technology portfolio, The Journal of Business Strategy 3 (1982) 70–75.

[48] N. Capon, R. Glazer, Marketing and technology: a strategic coalignment, Journal of Marketing 51 (3) (1987) 1–14.

[49] G. Day, Diagnosing the product portfolio, Journal of Marketing 41 (1977) 29–38.

[50] D. Ford, C. Ryan, The marketing of technology, European Journal of Marketing 11 (1977) 369–381.

[51] J.M. Harris, R.W. Shaw, W.P. Sommers, The strategic management of technology, Outlook 5 (1981) 20–28.

[52] A. McMillan, Roadmapping—agent of change, Research Technology Management 42 (2) (2003) 40–47.

[53] R. Phaal, C.J.P. Farrukh, D.R. Probert, Technology Roadmapping: Linking Technology Resources to Business Objectives,

Center of Technology Management, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 2001.

[54] M. Nissen, M. Kamel, K. Sengupta, Integrated analysis and design of knowledge systems and processes, Information

Resources Management Journal 13 (1) (2000) 24–43.

Sungjoo Lee is doctoral candidate at the Department of Industrial Engineering of Seoul National University (SNU). She holds

BS and MS in industrial engineering, both from SNU. In preparing her dissertation, she presented numerous practice notes and

academic articles on technology roadmapping, patent analysis, and high-tech marketing.

Yongtae Park is a faculty member at the Department of Industrial Engineering and Director of Graduate Program of

Technology Management at SNU. He holds BS in industrial engineering from SNU, MS and PhD in operations management,

both from University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA. His research interests lie in such areas as technological innovation

management, knowledge management, and e-business modeling.

Documents

Customization of technology roadmaps according to roadmapping purposes: Overall process and detailed modules