Developing and Implementing Roadmaps – A Reference

(814) 863-7133
E-mail: [email protected]
Irene J. Petrick, Ph.D.
Professor of Practice and
Director, Enterprise Informatics & Integration Center (EI2)
College of Information
Sciences & Technology
The Pennsylvania State University
102H IST Building
University Park, PA 16802
Developing and Implementing Roadmaps – A Reference Guide
PART 1: INTRODUCTION TO ROADMAPPING
ROADMAPS TAKE MANY FORMS, BUT THERE ARE SOME COMMON ELEMENTS IN THE
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT SPACE
Executive & Specialist Input
Integrated into Common
Roadmap Framework
Technical Specialist Input
Executive Inputs
A roadmap (the noun) is a graphical representation of the interaction of multiple forces over time,
generally aimed at technology, markets or product development platforms. A roadmap is an information
organizing framework that brings together diverse issues into a common view.
Market 1
P1
P2
P3
P4
T1
AR1
BR1
BR2
Market
Roadmap
Market 2
T2
AR2
BR3
Product
Roadmap
P5
T3
Technology
Roadmap
Applied
Research
Programs
AR3
BR4
Basic
Research
Programs
BR5
TIME
Figure 1: Roadmapping Captures Both Strategic and Tactical Aspects
When we refer to roadmaps we are often speaking of a set of roadmaps rather than a single effort. In
Figure 1 we see a composite roadmap that captures in a single graphic activities and issues that are
happening across several silos within a traditional organization. Here we see that basic research programs
roll up into applied research programs that support specific technology solutions. Note that the BR and
AR programs feed into the Technology platforms (T) and technology roadmap in terms of time. This is to
insure that the technology is ready for the product when it is needed – in essence managing any
technology that might be on the critical path.
But the product roadmap – the set of product offerings and their migration over time to a new platform
(from grey to white above) is really the result of the combined influence of the technology opportunities
and the market gaps. In the example above, two different product platforms are envisioned to support two
different markets. In reality, this may actually be a gradual transition.
Roadmapping (the verb) is the process whereby companies bring together a diverse group of staff to
consider how different aspects of the internal and external environments will interact and influence the
product portfolio choices. Roadmapping and roadmaps are distinctly different from project planning and
project plans (aka, Microsoft Project). In project planning and project plans, the emphasis is on execution
to completion, with a focus on tasks and resource management.
Though there are multiple forms that roadmaps can take, there are some common traits. First, in
roadmapping, companies are seeking to decompose complex systems into subsystems and ultimately into
elements. It is the elements that are represented on the roadmap. In this way, the elements can change
individually and we can see the impact that an element change will have on the outcome and/or timing of
the more complex system. When the complex systems are decomposed, it is often done along functional
lines. In Figure 1, for example, the information is organized in functional layers such as marketing and
technology, with technology further subdivided into basic and applied. 1
For many companies, the technology roadmap emerges based on technology forecasts, supplier
information, other industry roadmaps, and technology developments in key supporting industries. In the
technology roadmap, companies seek to capture the capabilities and timing of different, often competing,
technology solutions.
The market roadmap is derived from key user roadmaps – if the company is a supplier then it can gain
insight from roadmaps that its customers might create and share, from general demographics, customer
feedback, governmental regulation, and global competition in the product space.
ROADMAPS FACILITATE COMMUNICATION AND DECISION-MAKING
Recently a director of R&D at Proctor & Gamble, Inc. likened strategic planning in the product
development space to having a conversation. 2 He distinguishes two types of conversations – one about
possibilities and the other about action. The goal of these conversations is to create a common view of
the opportunity space and then to create a common understanding of the best path forward. This
distinction is quite relevant to roadmapping and roadmaps.
Roadmapping helps different individuals in the company discuss their view of the possibilities. Because
it is an information organizing framework, a roadmap quickly helps these different individuals find
linkages, common ground, and differences of opinion. Duane Oda, Product Development Chief in
Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA), noted that the roadmapping process changes both the caliber of
discussions and the participants. 3 In his experience with roadmapping over the past several years,
roadmapping has enabled BCA to consider opportunities and possibilities with its suppliers and with its
customers. These in turn have informed design.
Ultimately, roadmapping and roadmaps should help units within the company articulate what they will do
in the context of the organization’s goals and objectives. In this sense, roadmapping and roadmaps help
to link actions with strategic intent. Nowhere is this more crucial than in the technology development
arena, where there is uncertainty around how to translate high level product requirements into technical
approaches and activities. Here, R&D managers are deciding whether or not existing technology
solutions can be adapted to near and longer term needs or, conversely, whether new investments in
research are necessary to develop a new solution. Often this decision is paired with the Make versus Buy
decision – should the company invest in its own technology or partner with or acquire a company that
1
For a comprehensive description of the different forms that roadmaps might take, see Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P.,
and D.R. Probert (2004) “Technology roadmapping – A planning framework for evolution and revolution,”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71: 5-26.
2
Personal conversation at the Innovation Future Forum, Cincinnati, OH, October 2-4, 2007. By-invitation forum
sponsored by Boeing and Proctor & Gamble, Inc.
3
Personal conversation.
© Irene J. Petrick. Please do not reproduce without approval and attribution.
2
already possesses a similar solution or capability.
Figure 2 below highlights the different types of roadmaps that typically emerge and the way that these
roadmaps feed into the strategic and operational decision-making processes of most companies.
Basically there are three types of roadmaps:
1. Assessment roadmaps capture key elements of particular issues like the market, technology,
product or other basis for competition. Assessment roadmaps reflect the lay of the land
around a particular issue and the horizontal layers in these roadmaps are generally unrelated
to one another. Instead the common element is time.
2. Composite roadmaps capture the relationships between competitive issues and thus the
relationships between the layers is critical. Here is where we begin to align activities in one
area with those in another. Often companies use composite roadmaps to think about
alternative sets of actions that might support strategic initiatives.
3. Finally, operational roadmaps are where we translate the strategic intent that is captured on
the composite roadmap into individual operating unit plans that can then be executed and
managed through various processes.
Map the Lay of the Land
(Where are we now)
Call
To
Action
Monitor Key Drivers
(Have timing or
assumptions changed)
Market
Product
Technology
Assessment RMs
Operational RMs
Iterative Process
or Refinement
Marketing
PD
Project
Planning
R&D
Stretch Goal RMs
Composite RMs
Market
Product
Technology
Market
CHOOSE PATH
(How are we going to
make these changes)
Product
Strategic Planning
Long Term Goals
(Where do we want to be)
Technology
Choose Composite Plan
Map the Gap
(What changes must we make)
- Choose alternatives
- Scenario Analysis
Figure 2: Different Types of Roadmaps Feed into Company Decision-making Processes
Roadmaps help companies to determine where they are now in the context of important market and other
drivers. These lay of the land maps can then feed into the strategic planning process to help inform what
stretch goals the company might choose to pursue. Strategic planning is informed by roadmapping as
companies begin to think about their goals in the context of composite roadmaps that capture all of the
necessary actions, investments, partnerships, and other issues that might be needed to achieve these
stretch goals. Ultimately choices must be made between the alternatives presented in composite
roadmaps during the strategic planning process. Once choices are made about the best alternative path
forward, then these composite roadmaps can be translated into individual operational roadmaps that
© Irene J. Petrick. Please do not reproduce without approval and attribution.
3
merge the needs of strategic initiatives with ongoing initiatives within the unit to help balance resources,
people, and facilities.
It is at this point that roadmaps (and roadmapping) at the operational level might transition to stage gate
or project management, depending on the timing and uncertainty of activities. Throughout the cycle,
operational plans must be monitored to determine when they must be updated as the result of changes to
the internal and/or external environment, a point we’ll return to later in this guide.
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN A MAP AND A ROUTE
In the transportation domain, a map shows various options a traveler can use to reach a destination. A
route, on the other hand, is a subset of those options that specifies the particular set of roads to arrive at
that destination. By having a map, however, the traveler can select alternative routes when something
occurs to make the first choice no longer viable, for example, a traffic detour or accident. Similar to a
geographic map, a roadmap shows the various options, the lay of the land if you will, that describes the
product development space. With the roadmap, a company is seeking to describe the key drivers and
their likely timing.
Conversely, a route is a subset of the options that the company might take. When companies select a
route in the new product development space, they are choosing a migration path for technologies, a series
of additions and/or changes to product features, and a set of existing and target markets over time. The
route is based on the company’s “best guess” about what combinations will be most effective and
efficient, and which will be compelling in the market space at a competitive price.
In thinking about maps versus routes, companies need to consider the requirements needed to develop
each. Table 1 summarizes the differences between participation, format, and intent in the two.
Table 1: Comparing Routes and Maps
MAPS
ROUTES
Participation
Cross-functional teams drawn from a wide
range of corporate functions
Cross-functional teams or small groups,
often drawn from similar functional areas
Information Scope
Diverse information from across the
corporation, its suppliers, customers, etc.
Focused information on particular target
markets, product portfolios or technology
platforms
Intent
Describe the “lay of the competitive
landscape” to determine the organization’s
goals and objectives
Describe the best set of actions to respond to
the organization’s goals and constraints
Timing
Continuous monitoring of critical drivers,
with updates when critical drivers change
(See triggers and scenarios in Part 2)
On-going and often frequent (and often as
the result of basic and applied research
project outcomes)
Format
Often uses different formats across functions
in the company to communicate
trends/issues that are important to that
function
Standard formats across functions facilitate
comparisons between opportunities and/or
options
Primary Use
Used internally to build consensus on key
dimensions and to stimulate ideas
(sometimes paired with scenario
development activities)
Used internally and externally to
communicate corporate direction, coordinate
activities and evolve future project plans
over time
© Irene J. Petrick. Please do not reproduce without approval and attribution.
4
PART 2: TOP TEN ISSUES IN GETTING STARTED WITH ROADMAPPING
The roadmapping process represented earlier in Figure 2 has many forms, but in general there are ten
basic issues that must be addressed. The graphics included here are from seminars on roadmapping
offered by Dr. Petrick, but the use of post-it notes is quite a common first approach. Although software is
available to support roadmapping efforts, and is used by many companies to great benefit, the most
important thing is to understand the value of roadmaps and the roadmapping process. Thus, you should
note that these graphics reflect the high level of interaction among team members, the use of post-it notes,
markers and flip charts to support discussion, and the multiple linked steps in going from brainstorming
ideas to thinking about R&D work packages (related to R&D portfolio management).
1. Format. Roadmapping can be initiated at any level, but is often a grass roots effort. The format of
the roadmap, though somewhat standard as we’ve already discovered, is generally tailored to the
initiating unit’s emphasis.
a. Marketing tends to start with the external environment and the company’s current customer
environment
b. Technology tends to start with the product
platform as it stands currently, then to think
about the technology and R&D projects that
might be needed to support future product
opportunities. Often this leads to more
conversation about enabling technologies and
how these might actually change the product
offerings & features. Ideally the discussion
turns to technologies that are “over the
horizon” and which require monitoring and
assessment as possible viable future
alternatives.
c. Human resources tends to start with current
employee experience and considers gaps in
critical knowledge or expertise given future
product opportunities or plans. Often HR
(along with others in the organization) uses
roadmaps to consider how to either hire,
collaborate or partner to acquire access to
these resources.
d. Despite the initiating unit, THE KEY is to
identify critical drivers, decompose the complex system into elements across functional layers
and across time, and to develop a rough assessment of the linkages between elements.
2. Stand-alone versus integrated roadmaps. The difference between these is that stand alone efforts
generally drive decision-making in a functional area while integrated efforts drive decision-making
across multiple areas and often across multiple responsibilities (accounting, R&D, information
technology, etc.) Many roadmapping efforts start as stand-alone efforts. Integrated efforts require
significant buy-in and almost always have a key champion who is in a leadership position.
a. Stand-alone efforts can be successful as a discussion support for the unit and don’t
necessarily need to be linked to other execution processes (stage-gate, etc); whereas
b. Integrated efforts nearly always need to be linked to other planning and execution processes
to be sustainable.
© Irene J. Petrick. Please do not reproduce without approval and attribution.
5
3. Decide your motivation for roadmapping before you begin. Establishing goals for your roadmap,
often framed in the statement “When we develop this roadmap we will be able to more clearly
articulate…. [a challenge]… [the relationship between …].” You need to make sure you capture the
data needed to drive discussion about whatever is motivating you. Often trying to recreate the data
underlying some of your roadmapping elements after the fact is difficult, and certainly more time
consuming. This is particularly important as you expand roadmapping efforts.
4. Think about who cares or might be impacted. It is critical to understand who will benefit from the
organization of information into a roadmap format…and who might be challenged or threatened by it.
Plan your roadmapping process to include a cross-functional group, and try to anticipate the critical
managers and/or staff to bring on board.
5. Developing the roadmap.
a. Identify the complex system (s) you will tackle
b. Decompose them into elements
c. Plot those elements over time (generally on the horizontal
axis) and arranged by category (layers)…note: sometimes
these layers themselves become roadmaps
i. Select the layers to match your motivations (3,
above)
ii. Try to think about the key goal (often product
portfolio) as the central piece of the roadmap into
which other activities feed
iii. Think of your roadmaps as coming in sets (often nested)
d. Use a cross functional group to brainstorm, with
depth in the area your are concentrating on (3,
above)
e. Post-it notes and informal beginnings (on a white
board of flip chart) promote discussion
© Irene J. Petrick. Please do not reproduce without approval and attribution.
6
6. To get from the roadmap to specific work packages (from a technology perspective this is
particularly useful, but can be adapted to other things), use the GOTChA method. [Goals,
Opportunities, Technical Challenges, Approaches methodology] 4
a. Identify the high level goals
b. For each goal decompose this into objectives that can be expressed as technical challenges
that must be met
c. Develop a set of approaches that might meet each
technical challenge (posed as a one line statement
of work for each)
d. Group similar statements of work into preliminary
work packages (your groupings will depend on
your specific activities, but often include groupings
by staff who would work on this, groupings by
location, etc.)
e. Review the preliminary work packages looking
for….
i. Overlaps….can work packages be
combined in whole or in part to eliminate
unneeded redundancy
ii. Gaps…did you create a set of preliminary
work packages that when taken together
still don’t address all of your technical
challenges? In other words do you need to
expand or otherwise change a work
package? Or do you need to develop
another new one?
7. Don’t worry about the form – focus on the content. An experienced group of roadmappers with
depth in the area of interest can accomplish quite a complete, complex (and somewhat messy)
4
The GOTChA methodology was first developed at NASA and has been refined by Ben Almojuela, Associate
Technical Fellow, Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It is now used extensively at BCA to translate roadmap high
level goals into a portfolio of R&D projects.
© Irene J. Petrick. Please do not reproduce without approval and attribution.
7
outcome. In the Car of the Future example below, the group was able to focus on a Goal: Improved
Performance at a Lower Cost, and then to think about Infrastructure issues, Fuel cell issues, and
Automobile Complementary Architectures that might have to come together over the course of the
time period they were considering, beginning in 2008 and going beyond 2014. Roadmapping on a
three to five year timetable is common, but the specific timeframe is generally linked to the life cycle
of the product and technology. For example, Boeing Commercial Airplanes develops an outlook that
goes 30 years, typical of the life cycle of their airplane platforms. Consumer electronics companies,
on the other hand, are typically planning in 18 month to 3 year horizons, with an emphasis on the
migration to new platforms and technologies.
After you have decomposed the complex system into its layers and elements, and determined the
linkages through extensive discussion, you can worry about putting them into better looking formats.
At the first stages, the intent is to capture the relationships, linkages and gaps.
As you grow roadmapping efforts, consider your maturity level. In discussions with over 150
executives over the past four years, a six-stage roadmapping maturity model has emerged which
begins with an ad hoc stand alone activity that is spearheaded by an individual unit at the most
basic level and goes through increasingly networked and integrated activities to stage 5 which is
company-optimizing and then to stage 6 which is network optimizing. Because innovation is
increasingly happening across companies and because innovation is often one of the goals of
© Irene J. Petrick. Please do not reproduce without approval and attribution.
8
roadmapping activities, this maturity model suggests that companies with the most mature
roadmapping processes are those that consciously and formally include their supply network (See
Figure 3). Certainly the move to open innovation strategies suggests that deep linkages to
suppliers will be a growing trend.
d
ase
e
r
Inc
ent
itm
m
com
RM applied
inconsistently;
Bottom-up
or top-down
effort not
linked
4
Advanced
3
Integrated
2
Consistent
1
Ad Hoc
s
age
k
n
i
al l
igit
d
ed
eas
r
c
& in
RM
practices
documented
& training is
available;
Communication and
coordination
is attempted;
Stand alone
activity
RM linked to
new product
development
and
technology
project
selection;
RM linked to
stage-gate or
other
execution
processes;
RM driven by
high level
champion
RM used to do
scenario
analysis; RM
drives
technology
reuse
opportunities;
top-down and
bottom-up
participation
cuts across
company silos;
ad hoc inputs
from suppliers
& customers
5
Company
Optimizing
RM linked to
portfolio
analysis & risk
analysis;
Formalized
inputs from
suppliers &
customers;
RM methods
articulate
collaboration
strategy;
RM balances
market-pull and
technologypush
investments in
new product
development,
protecting
technology on
the critical path
6
Network
Optimizing
RM facilitates
crossorganization
scenario
analysis;
Distributed
input into
digital RM
supports codevelopment,
forecasting and
lifecycle
planning;
RM information
framework
facilitates
situational
awareness
across supply
network
Figure 3: Roadmapping Maturity Model
Interestingly when company representatives are asked to identify where their company falls within
this maturity model, beginners to roadmapping note that there should be a Stage Zero to reflect the
initial efforts. When company representatives are asked to identify where they think their company
wishes to be, many identify stages that are more than one incremental step to the right. Remember it
is easier to make an incremental step than a leap, and plan your roadmapping roll-out and growth
accordingly.
8. Updating the roadmap using triggers and scenarios. Think about scenarios in which the roadmap
you’ve developed is “true.” Then think about the key elements that are driving your assumptions.
These are triggers. Triggers are the data elements that you will use to track the roadmap over time.
Triggers must have a set point or tipping point. When reality begins to approach or exceed these
tipping points, you must reconsider your roadmap – either the elements are wrong, the timing is
wrong, the path forward is wrong...or some combination of the above. By using triggers and tipping
points to initiate discussion and possible revision to the roadmap, we are focusing resources on
tracking the critical drivers, rather than trying to monitor and update every aspect of the roadmap (See
Figure 4). This is particularly important when we try to identify the experts who are most
appropriate to monitor the assumptions. The challenge is to empower these experts with knowledge
© Irene J. Petrick. Please do not reproduce without approval and attribution.
9
about organizational goals and roadmap assumptions so that they can glean key changes from their
respective environments.
Roadmap
Scenario
Underlying
Assumptions
Alternative
Views
Key Drivers
Triggers w/Tipping Points
Scenario
Is reinforced
Stable
Changing
Revised Scenario
Revised
Roadmap
Team Discussion
Figure 4: Linking Roadmapping to Scenarios – Developing a Monitoring & Updating Strategy
Based on Key Drivers, Triggers and Tipping Points
9. Develop a plan and assign responsibilities for roadmap updates. A roadmap that is created once
and evaluated only once a year in preparation for the strategic planning cycle yields little value
compared to the time intensive nature of this method. Make sure when you are starting the activity
that you have considered how frequently roadmaps might need to be updated. Also think about how
other planning and budgeting cycles occur in your company. Should roadmapping efforts be linked
in any way to these, and if so, what are the implications for updating? Don’t leave this to chance and
remember that your supplier and customer base may be good sources of information, and allow time
to gather inputs from them.
PART 3: ASSESSING ROADMAPPING SUCCESS
Roadmapping is a very labor intensive effort. It requires staff commitment for brainstorming, significant
fact-finding when we identify gaps in our knowledge about competitor or market trends, and it requires
extensive information monitoring with respect to the key drivers (triggers and tipping points). Below are a
list of metrics that have been identified by companies engaged in roadmapping as possible measures of
success/value. This list is certainly not intended to be exhaustive, but has been compiled during
discussions with over 150 industry roadmappers.
•
•
Number of people who touch the roadmap
Number of updates
© Irene J. Petrick. Please do not reproduce without approval and attribution.
10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Number of meetings and engagements where the roadmap is discussed/updated/used
Regularity of updates
Customer participation
Number of active pursuits tied to the roadmap
Increase in the span of the “Visible Horizon”
Number of triggers established and assigned for on-going monitoring
Number of decisions driven by roadmap information
Fewer surprises
Increased number of “game changers”
Number of division’s whose objectives are captured in the roadmap
Formal assessments of the activity including surveys
“Right” targets for acquisition
Ability to recall (increased/enhanced institutional memory)
Use of the word “roadmap” by leadership in a way that means value added
Decreased capability scramble (the right people, with the right expertise at the right time)
Attrition rate of roadmappers (a negative, but useful measure)
Number of business processes that require roadmap referencing (also breadth of processes)
Reduced cost and time to reach plan consensus
Increased funding due to roadmap suggestions
Reality tracking along the timetable that the roadmap suggests (we really are creating a visible
horizon that’s correct)
Decreased waste and delay
Decreased percent of reversed decisions
Decreased number of projects that were not used (effectiveness of planning the right project)
Increased “kill rate” (we don’t continue projects that don’t add obvious value to some objective/goal)
Redeployment of later phase dollars to more useful projects (opportunity value)
Decreased number of “chairman’s baby” projects
Decoupling of the R&D project from the target product insertion (so that when a product is killed, we
don’t necessarily kill all related underlying investments if they have value elsewhere)
----------------------------------------------------end--------------------------------------------------
© Irene J. Petrick. Please do not reproduce without approval and attribution.
11

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project