Printer Friendly

Customizing roadmapping: technology roadmapping is a powerful and flexible technique for supporting strategic planning--provided it's customized for the particular application context in both architecture and process.

The wide range of strategic contexts in which technology roadmapping can be applied makes the technique inherently flexible. The strategic context can be described in terms of a number of dimensions, including the nature of the organization, its goals, existing processes and procedures, and the available information and resources. But for roadmapping to be applied effectively, it is essential that the approach be adapted to fit the particular circumstances rather than limiting or distorting the strategic context to fit a particular roadmapping approach.

A survey to establish technology planning practice in United Kingdom industry (1) revealed that only 10 percent of respondents had actually used technology roadmapping; an additional 9 percent had heard about the technique and considered it to be potentially useful, although in larger companies, to facilitate understanding and give structure to planning over a longer period. However, 16 percent of respondents had discounted the technique entirely, typically perceiving it as too complex, formal and administratively burdensome. We attribute this perception partly to a lack of recognition that roadmapping must generally be customized to suit a particular application and partly to the difficulty of accomplishing such customization.

This article focuses on how the "fast-start" T-Plan method (2,3,4) can be customized to fit a wide range of organizational contexts, in terms of both roadmap architecture and process. The architecture must be designed to provide a framework for structuring relevant knowledge (Figure 1), together with the process for developing the roadmap. The capabilities of the roadmapping approach must be matched with the business issues being addressed, and this is achieved through a collaborative and iterative design activity. This can be complex, and a lack of specialized expertise is a barrier to its adoption.


Following a brief overview of the T-Plan process, we illustrate the principles that enable roadmapping to be customized with six generic case study examples. The examples illustrate the output from the planning process in terms of architecture and process in several different applications, reflecting many of the issues we describe.

The T-Plan guide focuses on how to initiate a roadmapping process in an organization as rapidly and economically as possible to develop a "first cut" roadmap. At its broadest level, the T-Plan process consists of three stages, illustrated in Figure 2: Planning, Workshops and Roll-out. The standard process has four workshops, as shown in Figure 3, while the customized process varies considerably. The customization takes place in the planning stage and is then implemented in the workshops and roll-out.


Generic Types of Roadmap

The T-Plan approach has been applied more than 40 times in a wide range of situations, including sector, technology, organization size, and strategic context. These applications can be grouped into the following six broad types (5, 6), illustrated in Figure 4, which highlight the flexibility of the approach. All except product-technology planning, which is the standard process, require customization of the approach.


1. Product-technology planning.--This is the standard T-Plan process. The roadmap is used to develop an integrated product-technology plan that meets the requirements of both the market and business, with the product feature and technology choices prioritized on the basis of customer needs and desires.

2. Strategic appraisal.--The roadmap template is used to capture, structure and share knowledge about the area of interest. This provides a resource for identifying and assessing strategic issues, leading to agreement on appropriate actions. The majority of T-Plan applications have been of this type.

3. Business reconfiguration.--The template is used to explore the implications of a particular strategic vision and to assess the current position. The migration paths that bridge the gap between the company's current strategic position and future vision are then explored.

4. Process development.--The template is used to explore the flow of knowledge between commercial and technical functions, focused on improving and developing business processes, such as new product development.

5. Research network development.--The template is used to capture, structure and share knowledge from both the commercial and technical perspectives, and then to identify future application requirements and opportunities, together with current research and network priorities (see the UK Faraday Partnerships example below).

6. Sector foresight.--The template is used to capture, structure and share knowledge about industry and market trends and drivers, which are then used to define performance measures and targets for the system. Future technology evolution is then explored, and research challenges identified.

While it is possible to broadly group roadmapping applications in this way, specific applications can differ considerably, and in most the roadmap architecture and the process for developing the roadmap will need to be customized to a greater or lesser extent.

Principles of Customization

The principles for customizing the roadmapping approach described below would be applied during planning discussions, before roadmapping begins. The two key elements of customization within a particular context are architecture and process. This is because at the heart of the planning phase is a design activity in which both the roadmap architecture and roadmapping process need to be considered in parallel. As with all design activities, the process is creative, iterative and non-linear. The following checklist can be used as a basis for focusing discussion, which continues until the parties agree on a plan that makes sense to all involved:

1. Context.--The nature of the issue that triggered interest in roadmapping needs to be explored and articulated, together with any constraints that will affect the approach adopted, including the following considerations:

* Ownership of the business problem: The roadmapping will not be successful unless a clear business purpose and business problem owner are established.

* Scope: Defining the boundaries of the domain of interest (i.e., what is being considered and what is not).

* Focus: The focal issue that is driving the need to roadmap.

* Aims: Those goals and objectives that the organization hopes to achieve with roadmapping in the long and short term. Also, the overall business aims and organizational goals are typically included, such as the desire to improve communication and to understand how the roadmapping approach can be used to support ongoing strategic activities in the firm.

* Resources: The level of resource that the organization is willing to contribute, in terms of people, effort and money.

* Participants: Typically, a multi-functional team is required, representing both commercial and technical perspectives and having the knowledge and expertise necessary to develop a well-founded and credible roadmap.

* Information sources: It is important that the roadmapping activity takes account of available information, although there is a practical limit to the quantity of data that can be accommodated in a workshop environment.

2. Architecture.--The structure of the roadmap, in terms of:

* Timeframe: The chronological aspects of the roadmap (horizontal axis), in terms of the planning horizon and key milestones, and also whether past events and activities should be included.

* Layers: The structure of the roadmap's vertical axis, in terms of broad layers and sub-layers, which is closely related to how the business is structured and viewed (physically and conceptually).

3. Process. The staged set of activities needed to build roadmap content, make decisions, identify and agree on actions, and maintain the roadmap in the future. The process includes a "macro" level, in terms of the broad steps needed in the short-, medium-and long-term, as well as a "micro" level associated with the short term and in particular the agenda that will guide the workshop(s).

Designing the Architecture

In the T-Plan standard process for product planning, the architecture emerges during the first three workshops, due to the use of the market-product and product--technology grids. For customized roadmaps, the architecture is usually agreed upon up front with a smaller group. Based on the roadmaps that have been built and observed during this research, the type of roadmap can be generalized, in terms of the following dimensions:

1. Time.--The temporal dimension must be explicitly shown on the roadmap, as it is a key feature of the approach. The scale chosen depends on the nature or the organization and the purpose of the roadmap. The ability to map and link time-based knowledge about various aspects of the business is what makes roadmapping such a powerful tool for supporting strategic planning. Strategic intentions are much more likely to be implemented if the various dimensions of the business are laid out in this way. The importance of time, in terms of business value, rests mostly on the tangible value that can be attributed to "time-to-market," in terms of both products and technology, and the level of synchronization that must exist across the business for this to occur. A further benefit of including time explicitly on the roadmap is that the architecture is compatible with the Gantt chart--the most widely used planning tool--thereby improving the likelihood that strategic plans are implemented effectively.

2. Layers.--The vertical axis of a roadmap consists of several layers and sub-layers, which can be designed to meet the particular needs associated with the roadmapping activity. There are a large number of options (see Figure 4), but in general three broad kinds of layers are used:

* The top layer usually relates to the trends and drivers that govern the overall goals or "purpose" associated with the roadmapping activity, including external market and industry trends and drivers (social, technological, environmental, economic, political, and infrastructural) and internal business trends and drivers, milestones, objectives, etc. Collectively, the type of information contained in the top layer can be thought of as representing the "know why" dimension of knowledge.

* The bottom layer usually relates to the resources needed to respond to the trends and drivers, including knowledge-based resources, such as technology, skills and competences, and other resources such as finance, partnerships and facilities. Collectively, the type of information contained in the bottom layer can be thought of as representing the "know how" dimension of knowledge.

* The middle layer generally relates to the tangible systems that are developed to respond to the trends and drivers (top) layer. Often this relates directly to the evolution of products (features and performance), although the middle layer can also represent the development of service-based products or other mechanisms for integrating technology in a way that delivers such benefits to customers and other stakeholders (and hence value to the business) as engineering, systems and organizational capabilities. The essential point is that a middle layer is almost always required, separating (bridging) the purely technical and commercial perspectives. The middle layer represents the "meat" in the roadmap "sandwich," providing common ground for discussing both commercial and technical issues. Collectively, the type of information contained in the middle layer can be thought of as representing the "know what" dimension of knowledge.

Each of these layers will typically include a number of sub-layers, which depend on the specific nature of the business and issues being considered.

The three dimensions of knowledge (know why, know what and know how) relate to the top, middle and bottom layers of the generic roadmap, respectively. There are three other similar dimensions of knowledge that can also be related to roadmapping: "know when" is associated with the time axis of the roadmap, while the other two dimensions--"know who" and "know where"--are typically embedded in the content of the roadmap. This emphasis on knowledge is a fundamental aspect of technology roadmapping, which is in fact a practical, action-oriented tool for supporting knowledge management in an organization, allowing knowledge from a range of perspectives to be captured, structured and shared, in turn enabling dialogue, decision-making and action.

Technology often appears twice on a roadmap, within the top and lower layers. The top layer generally represents external factors over which the roadmapping group has little or no control, while the other layers represent areas where there is a greater degree of control and where decisions have to be made about the route forward. For example, a manufacturer of consumer electronics equipment might include Moore's law in the top layer (as a key technology driver) but the selection of which chip technology to integrate into products in the lower layers.

There are many ways to segment the vertical axis of the roadmap, in terms of the layers and sub-layers that are chosen to structure its content. The structure needs to be considered in parallel with the roadmapping process, in terms of the overall roadmap "logic." Using a mixed metaphor, the roadmap can be thought of as both a "canvas" (upon which workshop participants are challenged to sketch out the "picture" that represents the topic and issues under consideration) and a "story," which represents the logical connectivity between information displayed on the roadmap, using the linguistic framework provided by the roadmap architecture.

In this way, it should be possible to "tell a story" about each layer of the roadmap (for example, how a particular product feature or technology area evolves over time), and for the roadmap overall (how activities within the various layers link to give "the full picture").

Other factors to consider when designing the roadmap architecture include:

* The layers should be reasonably independent of one another (for example, the screen and keyboard of a computer are largely independent but the pigment and resin in a paint are not).

* The definition of each layer should generally be consistent over time, so that development and evolution can be mapped over the full period of the roadmap. For example, display technology may be more appropriate than cathode ray tube technology for a computer, as the shift from CRT to flat screen technology can be accommodated with this broader definition.

* There may be benefit in ensuring that the structure of the roadmap integrates with other approaches and systems in the organization. For example, if the business is organized around a set of technical groups, it can make sense to build these into the roadmap, as existing information is likely to be available for these groups, and actions arising from the roadmapping activity are likely to be implemented by the same groups. However, such a strategy may not be the most appropriate in terms of the roadmap logic and there may be good reason to use the roadmap to create an alternative view (for example, if one aim is to stimulate cross-group activity).

Designing the Process

The roadmapping process is often said to be as important as the roadmap itself, owing to the benefits associated with the discussion and |earning that are associated with the development of a roadmap. Careful consideration needs to be given to the process during the planning stage, in parallel with design of the roadmap architecture, to capture, structure and share knowledge within the framework provided by the roadmap architecture, to identify key issues, support discussion, and agree on actions. As mentioned above, the process design needs to be considered at both the macro and micro levels:

1. Macro-process.--The issue at this level is how the overall process will work, in terms of a series of stages that lead toward the end goal. It is difficult to be prescriptive, as there are many potential paths that might be followed. However, the general principle of staging the process is sensible, breaking it into a set of semi-independent steps (e.g., individual workshops) that each deliver value in their own right but connect logically to enable the end goal of developing a sustainable and ongoing process. In this way, the resource commitments can be managed and flexibility retained in what is an inherently exploratory process.

The T-Plan fast-start approach is based on this concept, enabling the first step and generating buy-in for subsequent activity. An essential feature of the fast-start concept is that it should provide useful output while at the same time acting as a "design" activity for the longer-term roadmapping process. For this reason it is essential that the initial activity be completed, producing a "first-cut" roadmap, which is likely to include some information that is of dubious quality, reflecting gaps in knowledge (an important output in itself) and perhaps raising more questions than answers.

2. Micro-process.--The issue at this level is how to design the detailed process or the first stage of the macro-process, and in particular the agenda for the workshop(s). Again, the logical progression of the process needs to be considered in terms of a series of activities that lead toward satisfying the aims of the first phase. The scale needs to be considered carefully as there is a tradeoff between the level of resources committed (time and money) and the quality of the output (information content and decisions). However, the law of diminishing returns applies and it has been found that a one-day workshop is normally sufficient, which is generally an acceptable level of commitment to ensure good participation. Over time, it has been found that the most effective format is a three-stage process, starting with planning, leading up to the one-day workshop, followed by a post-workshop meeting to review outcomes and agree on the way forward. Case study 5 below follows this format.

Case 1: Product-Technology Planning

A small UK software company was considering a major redevelopment of an older software product aimed at a niche market in the pharmaceuticals industry. Technology roadmapping provided support for the product planning to assess the viability of the proposed development.


* Explore the attractiveness of a niche market within the pharmaceutical/clinical trial arena that can be serviced by existing core competences.

* Define the desired product evolution, in terms of version features, timing and associated effort.

* Assess whether it is possible to "leapfrog" existing company technology.

* Promote a greater understanding within the company of the benefits of communication between marketing, development and sales.

* Develop a technology roadmapping process tailored to the company that can then be used for all product development questions.


The standard T-Plan process was applied with a group of 10 participants from across the company, including software development engineering, sales, marketing, and management. The case illustrates the application of the "standard" T-Plan process (2,3,4) based on four workshops:

1. Market: trends and drivers brainstormed and prioritized.

2. Product: features brainstormed; market/product grid used to rank ability of product features to meet market drivers.

3. Technology: solutions brainstormed; product/ technology grid used to rank ability of technology solutions to meet product features.

4. Roadmapping: evolution of market, product and technology charted against time, using grid headings as sub-layers of the roadmap.


The broad structure of the technology roadmap is shown in Figure 5. As the standard process was applied, the detailed structure of the roadmap, in terms of the sub-layers, emerged from the process as a result of using the Market-Product and Product-Technology grids.



The company decided that it would over-stretch its resources if it went ahead with the development. This was a useful outcome and the process was re-applied soon after to plan an update of an existing software product.

Case 2: Strategic Appraisal

A large automotive supplier developed a new roadmap within the technical services group to support a new service-based strategic initiative.


* Develop a business case for investing in methods in the service area and the capability that can be offered both within the company and more widely.

* Build a picture of the "suite of services" the company should offer.

* Generate an action plan (short, medium and long-term) for working toward being a Centre of Excellence.

* Learn how "fast-start" roadmapping can be applied most effectively.


The company overall was familiar with roadmapping for product and technology planning; however, this application required a tailored solution. In the planning session with the roadmapping owner and the internal facilitator, it was decided to customize the standard process to take advantage of market and technology survey work already carried out and focus on services. This resulted in three half-day workshops, each contributing directly to the roadmap:

1. Market and technology: brainstormed business drivers and potential service offerings as context; market and technologies were then considered in more detail.

2. Service: gathered internal customer perspectives on service ideas.

3. Links and action: pulled layers of roadmap together and developed the action plan.


The broad structure of the technology roadmap is shown in Figure 6. The main layers were chosen during the planning meeting. Each layer included a number of sub-layers, defined during the workshops.



The process revealed that the market and technologies were not as well understood as first thought. In addition, involving the potential future customers proved very useful in challenging the preconceptions of the core group. At the end of the process, the company had a clear action plan and a list of knowledge gaps to take forward into the ongoing planning.

Case 3: Business Reconfiguration

A medical device manufacturer wished to consider migrating toward being a more-technology-intensive company, with a significant increase in R&D investment.


* Define a future vision for the company--primarily in terms of technology and products but also market, business and organization (skills, structure, culture).

* Assess the current business to establish strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and mismatches.

* Consider how the gaps could be bridged; identify options and migration paths.

* Evaluate the technology roadmapping approach.


The planning meeting devised an agenda for a one-day workshop focused on strategy development. The agenda included a series of presentations and related discussions, each addressing a layer of the roadmap and simultaneously charted by the facilitators. The key steps were:

1. Capturing the vision: The first presentation was the proposed business strategy, and the discussion identified the characteristics of the company in this new context. A further presentation focusing on future technological developments and requirements was followed by a discussion to identify important technologies for the future.

2. Gap analysis: Further discussions considered markets and products now and in the future, and issues and future requirements concerning organization and skills.

3. Migration path: Strengths and weaknesses and actions were charted for each level.


The broad structure of the technology roadmap, shown in Figure 7, was designed in the planning meeting. Each layer included a number of sub-layers, defined during the workshop.



The company used the workshop outputs to develop a detailed plan of action. A year later, a new CEO was appointed and the strategic plan was reviewed in a two-day roadmapping workshop. Day 1 mapped the new strategic plan onto a roadmap (first cut). Day 2 developed detailed functional plans, using Day 1 output to provide integration.

Case 4: Process Development

This small process company designed and manufactured durable coatings for heavy transport and external metal drum applications. The company had a 1-2 year planning horizon and was market-rather than technology-driven.


* Support a new project to develop a high-performance paint.

* Support improved strategic management of technology within the firm.

* Integrate technology better with the overall business strategy.

* Assess the value of "fast-start" technology roadmapping as a tool, technique or framework to aid these improvements.


The standard T-Plan process was followed initially but because of the linked nature of the coating constituents (e.g., pigment and resin) a process flow approach was deemed more appropriate. The four workshops were cut to three, more production representation was obtained, and the necessary information to support the newly created new product development (NPD) process was charted. The main steps to develop the roadmap were:

1. Defining the process: The NPD process was charted in terms of key milestones against development time.

2. Revealing the dual perspective: Key aspects of commercial and technical support of the project were charted.

3. Identifying the information flows: The required commercial and technical information for each milestone was charted.


The broad structure of the technology roadmap is shown in Figure 8. The layers were determined in the third workshop by the decision to chart information flows around the stages of the NPD process.



The company gained a map of required knowledge flows to support its new NPD process. This showed the communication that needed to occur between the business' technical and commercial functions. This type of roadmap is useful for business process design and re-engineering.

Case 5: Research Network Development

The case is derived from application of the T Plan approach within several UK Faraday Partnerships concerned with the development of products, services and infrastructure. There are currently 24 of these government-funded industrial-academic networks, which generally have either a technology or sector focus, each needing to carry out a technology translation task between the academic and industrial members of the network. Examples include food processing and information & communications.


* Develop a "first-cut" technology roadmap for the Faraday Partnership, including market/industry trends and drivers, applications and technology.

* Collect, structure and share knowledge about markets, applications and technology, focused on identifying gaps and opportunities to exploit technology and leading to priority research themes and actions.

* Consider how technology roadmapping can support ongoing activities of the Faraday Partnership.


The overall process consisted of a planning phase, a one-day workshop and a follow-on meeting to review outcomes and affirm actions. The workshop agenda followed these three broad steps:

1. Knowledge capture: commercial and technical groups mapped knowledge of drivers and technology.

2. Application functionality and performance (current and future): the same groups mapped requirements and capabilities, followed by feedback and discussion to identify synergies and gaps.

3. Applications: each group undertook a strategic review of its area, assessed the roadmap content for relevance to the application area, identified research challenges and skills requirements, and prepared an outline communication roadmap for feedback and discussion to identify priorities.


The broad structure of the technology roadmap is shown in Figure 9. Each layer included a number of sub-layers, defined prior to the workshop.



The customized roadmapping approach has provided the Faraday Partnerships with a mechanism to capture and share knowledge and define a way forward.

Case 6: Sector Foresight

This was a collaborative activity between industry, academia and the UK government to identify and demonstrate technologies for sustainable road transport (7).


* Identify and demonstrate technologies for sustainable road transport.

* Identify technology and research themes for road transport.

* Support UK industry in the competitive global market for transport products.

* Provide sustainable mobility for UK citizens.


The process was focused on research needs, communication and network development. The main steps were:

1. Mapping the context: charting market and industry trends and drivers.

2. Evolution of performance: charting requirements and desired functional performance of road transport systems.

3. Consultation: presentation to a wider audience and addition of further material to chart.

4. Mapping the technology: technical subgroups convened to chart required and desired technological response, including research needs.

5. Synthesis: integration of the layers of the roadmap and identification of gaps and actions.


The broad structure of the technology roadmap is shown in Figure 10. Each layer included a number of sub-layers, defined during the workshops.



The roadmap helps provide a framework for technological innovation in road vehicle systems. The 20-year horizon ensures that investment in technology and research is linked to the trends and drivers that influence the road transport system in that time frame. The roadmap encourages communication as a forerunner of action within industry and wider networks, and it provides a map of future innovation paths in a number of key technology areas.

Lessons Learned

The technology roadmapping process is an extremely flexible and powerful technique for supporting strategic planning. This flexibility is both a strength and weakness in that it can be applied in many different contexts but must generally be customized to fit the particular application. If the customization steps that have emerged from the over 40 applications of the T-Plan fast-start method are followed, then an organization has a good chance of developing a useful process and a meaningful roadmap.

The following factors contribute to a successful and sustainable roadmapping initiative:

* A clear business need, tangible benefits and appropriate timing of the activity.

* A good architecture that reflects the structure of the organization and the problem at hand.

* Strong commitment and ownership from senior management and a champion to drive the process forward, perhaps supported by external independent facilitation.

* An effective process that collects relevant information by getting the right people involved, with the expertise required to develop a well-founded and credible roadmap, which typically requires multifunctional/ multidisciplinary input.

* Effective communication to ensure that the roadmap influences decision-making.

* An appropriate culture for supporting collaboration and sharing in the business, combined with a desire to develop and implement business processes.

The T-Plan fast-start approach provides a template and a set of customization principles that provide benefits in their own right, as well as initiating a longer-term process. The fast-start approach can be used to explore a particular strategic issue (for example, an opportunity or threat) without the commitment to continue to develop an ongoing and embedded process. However, the option to do so is one of the outcomes of the approach and can lead to a strong, well-grounded roadmapping process.


(1.) Phaal, R. and C. J. P. Farrukh. "Technology Planning Survey Results." Project Report, Centre for Technology Management, Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge, UK, 2000.

(2.) Phaal, R, Farrukh, C., Mitchell, R. and Probert, D. "Starting-up roadmapping fast." Research" Technology Management, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 52 58, 2003.

(3.) Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P. and Probert, D. R. T-Plan: the fast-start to technology roadmapping--planning your route to success. Cambridge, UK: Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, 2001.

(4.) Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P. and Probert. D.R. "Fast-Start Technology Roadmapping." Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Management of Technology, February 2000, Miami. Published in Khalil, T. M., Lefebvre, L. A. and Mason, R. M. (eds.) Management of technology: the key to prosperity in the third millennium, Selected papers from IAMOT 2000, Pergamon Press, Amsterdam, pp. 275-284, 2001.

(5.) Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P. and Probert, D. R. "Characterisation of technology roadmaps: purpose and format." Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology. Portland, July 29 August 2, 2001, pp. 367 374.

(6.) Phaal, R., Clare J. P. Farrukh, John F. Mills, David R. Probert. "Customizing the Technology Roadmapping Approach." Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland, July, 2003.

(7.) Phaal, R. Foresight vehicle technology roadmap--technology, and research directions for future road vehicles. London: UK Department of Trade and Industry, URN 02/933, 2002,

Clare Farrukh is a senior research associate in the Engineering Department of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, where she conducts applied research in business processes and strategic technology management. She joined the University Centre for Technology Management in 1995, where she coordinates the Cambridge Technology Management Network. She has a background in chemical engineering, with industrial experience in process plant and composites manufacturing.

Robert Phaal is a senior research associate in the Engineering Department of the University of Cambridge in the UK, where he conducts applied research in business processes and strategic technology management. Following six years at the Welding Institute in Cambridge, he joined the University Centre for Technology Management in 1997, located within the Institute for Manufacturing. He has a background in mechanical engineering and a Ph.D. in computational mechanics.

Michael Radnor is professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School, Evanston, Illinois, where he founded and, for seven years, chaired its Management and Organizations Department. He is now director of the Center for Technology and Innovation Management (CTIM). He helped build and chairs the MATI (Management of Accelerated Technology Innovation) industry consortium. His Northwestern doctorate was on R&D management, with under- and post-graduate engineering studies at Imperial College and in business administration at LSE in the UK. He has worked in production with Lucas Industries, Israel Aircraft Industries and Westinghouse; he has been CO0 of a high-tech start-up, and is an active consultant.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Industrial Research Institute Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Comment:Customizing roadmapping: technology roadmapping is a powerful and flexible technique for supporting strategic planning--provided it's customized for the particular application context in both architecture and process.
Author:Phaal, Robert; Farrukh, Clare; Probert, David
Publication:Research-Technology Management
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 1, 2004
Previous Article:Viewing the future: roadmapping is what delivers results--not the roadmaps alone.
Next Article:Evolution of roadmapping at Motorola: from drawing roadmaps on large sheets of paper, the company has moved to creating them by completing an...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters