Chapter 4 Fast-start roadmapping workshop techniques 4.1 Overview There are many ways in which the roadmapping approach has been applied, as discussed in Chapters 1 and 3. This is partly due to differences in terminology (exactly what is meant by ‘roadmap’ and ‘roadmapping"), but more so because the underlying concepts are very flexible. While many roadmaps have been published, and many papers have been written about the topic (see Appendices A and B), relatively little guidance has been published on the detailed methods used for developing roadmaps, apart from: + Industry Canada has published guidance on technology roadmap development, together with a framework for monitoring and measuring the results from their national sector-level foresight roadmapping process (Industry Canada, 2007a&b), based on more than twenty applications undertaken since 1995'. * The Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources (Emerging Industries Section) has produced general guidance on the development of technology roadmaps for strategy and policy development in industry and government (ISR, 2001). " www.ie.ge.ca/trm = 107-* The US Department of Energy (Office of Environmental Management) has developed guidance on science and technology roadmapping for environmental management (DoE, 2000)’. * The Centre for Technology Management at the University of Cambridge has developed the T-Plan guide for product-technology roadmapping, based on fast-start workshop techniques (Phaal et al, 2001), described in this Chapter. * Technology roadmapping for emerging industries (Smith, 2007, Tolfiee & Smith, 2009). The above guidance collectively provides a good basis for planning and implementing roadmapping initiatives, although only T-Plan provides detailed guidance on workshop design and facilitation. It is often claimed that the process of developing roadmaps is as important as the roadmaps themselves (if not more so), due to the associated communication and network-building benefits. Workshops often play a key role in this Process, providing an opportunity for various stakeholders to interact on a personal basis, in order to identify areas of common interest and concern, explore options and agree the way forward. This Chapter focuses on fast-start workshop techniques, including the T- Plan method mentioned above, and the more general S-Plan approach for strategy and policy applications. These approaches use interactive workshops to bring together diverse groups of participants to capture and discuss perspectives, focus and explore options and opportunities, make decisions and agree actions, and to develop preliminary roadmaps (a typical workshop is illustrated in Fig. 4.1). The methods have been developed over a period of 10 years, involving more than 200 wide- ranging collaborative applications in industry, government and academia. There are two principal variants of the fast-start approach that apply similar concepts and techniques to address different classes of problem, although each application requires some degree of customisation depending on goals and context: * S-Plan (Section 4.3) focuses on general strategic challenges, typically at business, corporate, sector and policy levels, The process brings together large groups of diverse stakeholders in 1-2 day workshops to explore and prioritise strategic issues, develop and align innovation and research strategies, and to agree the way forward (Phaal er al., 2006). * T-Plan (Section 4.4) focuses on product-technology roadmapping, bringing together medium sized groups of cross-functional * http://emi-web.inel.goviroadmap/guide pdf = 108 -RE RR TRE nm Oa ee aren: stakeholders in four half-day workshops to explore and plan a product-based innovation (Phaal et al, 2001). Fig, 4.1 ~ Typical roadmapping workshop activity (S-Plan) The differences and relationship between the two approaches is highlighted in Fig. 4.2, although either method can be used in isolation, including particular modules, or as part of other business processes. S- Plan has the capacity for covering a very broad scope (typically business, corporate or sector levels), rapidly capturing perspectives, identifying and prioritising key topics for exploration and action planning. If one of the topies relates to product, service or process level innovation, then T- Plan provides a more detailed method for developing aligned market, product, technology and resource strategies and plans. $-Plan can be used as a starting point, associated with the left-hand side of the funnel, with ‘T-Plan more suited to a slightly later phase (second iteration), once there is confidence on where to focus innovation efforts. 4.2 Fast-start workshop approach ‘The fast-start approach uses multi-functional and multi-organisational workshops as a means for the rapid initiation of roadmapping. ‘The - 109-methods are designed to be agile, in the sense of being flexible, rapid, efficient and scaleable, Focusing on immediate issues of concern and interest delivers quick benefits, while taking the first step on what can be a long roadmapping journey. The main outputs of the fist iteration in this rapid prototyping approach are decisions and agreed actions, together with process learning from a pilot application of roadmapping. The general fast-start workshop approach is summarised in this section, with more detail of the S-Plan and T-Plan approaches provided in subsequent sections, including examples. (strategy, innovation. ew product development) Fig. 4.2 ~ Positioning of S-Plan and T-Plan roadmapping approaches 4.2.1 Role of fast-start workshops ‘The way in which a roadmapping initiative supports strategy, policy or innovation in the organisation should be considered carefully during the design phase, as inputs and outputs to and from the roadmapping activity will often be linked to milestones within those business processes, as indicated in Fig. 4.3 (for example, review points in a new product development process). Individual workshops support the broader roadmapping initiative, as a microcosm of the overall process, requiring planning, implementation and follow-on, with inputs and outputs aligned ‘with the overall roadmapping initiative. Support is required in terms of facilitation, steering and project. management, and further work is typically needed before, between and after workshops to collect data, analyse results, develop roadmap representations and associated reports, and to ensure that actions are taken forward. -110-ats ‘Business process (strategy, novation) . iestnes . cecson pons oe (sostegie reve, / tage oats) Preparation Implementation bp ar aera ep Now eater “Sthremor a pees Roacnap | etc ‘Cae tyes intiative | oar serena ages Roadmap workshops Fig. 4.3 ~ Position of roadmapping initiatives and workshops within strategy and innovation processes, highlighting key success factors identified by de Laat ‘& McKibben (2003) As noted in previous chapters, there is no single universally applicable roadmapping method, with a need to adapt and customise the approach to suit the particular circumstances. Roadmapping initiatives can be separated into three broad elements: preparation, implementation and follow-on. Also shown in Fig. 4.3 are the key success factors identified by de Laat & McKibben (2003) for supra-company (network / sector) level applications, most of which also apply to company initiatives. Fast-start roadmapping workshop techniques enable key stakeholders to address strategic issues efficiently using the visual structure of roadmaps to capture, discuss, prioritise, explore and communicate issues. Focusing on current concerns, using the approach as a problem-solving tool, improves the likelihood of quick benefits, and provides a valuable learning opportunity and first step towards a sustainable process. Roadmapping used in this rapid prototyping way can act as a useful diagnostic tool ~ mapping available knowledge and views will very quickly identify gaps in knowledge, together with issues and risks that require action. This ‘agile’ approach avoids the danger of over complicating and bureaucratising the process, which is a common pitfall and a reason why many roadmapping processes flounder. Moving forward, individual roadmaps, and the roadmapping system overall, can be developed as appropriate for the organisation, in terms of approach and the degree of formality required, to fit with its structure, culture and business processes.When designing a roadmapping process it is important to consider the desired qualities of the output (the roadmap): what constitutes a ‘good” roadmap? how should ‘quality’ be assessed? Clearly, confidence and accuracy of commercial and technological forecasts are helpful, and it is important to use the best available knowledge, information and expertise. But, recognising that such forecasts are often highly uncertain in the longer term, and that there will be may gaps and questions associated with the first versions of the roadmaps produced, other outputs of the process provide a better measure of utility — primarily the decisions, consensus and actions that arise. Treating a roadmap as a fixed project plan is dangerous, unless the purpose is to govern a set of projects to implement a complex programme (right hand side of Fig. 4.2), Rather, a roadmap should be considered as a type of ‘radar’, looking forward in order to improve understanding, enhance communication, build networks, capture knowledge, make decisions, agree priorities and take actions, steering the organisation into the future. The S-Plan and T-Plan methods described in this Chapter provide reference processes that can and should be adapted as required, based on a clear understanding of the issues being addressed. This can involve incorporation of other tools and frameworks, such as valuation techniques or scenario planning, as will be discussed in Chapter 5. Modules within the methods can be used independently to support other processes and workshops if helpful. 4.2.2 Planning a fast-start workshop It is important to start planning well in advance of the workshop. This includes a collaborative design process, as shown in Fig. 4.4, involving both the roadmap owner (the person or group who want to use roadmapping to address their strategic issues) and the process owner (the person or group who will manage and facilitate the process). Collaboration is important due to the need to customise the roadmapping approach to address the particular organisational context and goals. Management and governance of the process should be considered. In companies this will usually involve a small team of senior managers, together with the process facilitators, to steer and review progress and outcomes, while for sector-level foresight initiatives more formal mechanisms may be required. 112+It is important to define objectives, focus and boundaries, to design the roadmap architecture and process, and to plan the logistics of the event. Key issues to consider include: ‘+ What are the critical goals? What questions and issues are important to address? What are likely to be the most interesting and important topics? What timeframes need to be considered? What is already known? What other processes, methods and systems should the initiative link to? What might the outputs look like? Will these meet the aims? ‘+ What unit of analysis is appropriate (a balance between breadth and depth)? What is the scope and where are the boundaries? + How should the topic be structured? =) So ‘echt oF» LS Fig. 4.4 — Planning for roadmapping invotves collaborative design Defining the architecture of the roadmap is a key step, as this provides the structure that guides virtually all activities in the process and workshop, providing a common visual language. The roadmap structure captures (and constrains) boundaries and timescales, allows pre- population with existing information and enables efficient population of roadmap in the workshop and subsequent reporting. ‘The principles described in Chapter 3 should be considered when designing the roadmap architecture, which is governed by the six fundamental questions that underpin all roadmaps: 1a) Where do we 1b) Where are 1c) How can we want to go? we now? get there? 2a) Why do we need 2b) What should 2c) How should to act? we do? we do it? -113-For $-Plan the architecture of the roadmap is generally designed prior to the workshop, as part of the planning process, while for T-Plan the structure of the roadmap is developed during the workshops. The layers and sub-layers need to be defined, to represent all of the key perspectives and system elements appropriately, with the amount of space devoted to each layer reflecting the relative importance and likely density of information. It is sensible to ‘test drive’ the architecture before use in a workshop, confirming that key content can be positioned within the structure, and that the logical connections between the layers can be expressed. Appropriate timeframes should also be considered, including the past, current, short-term, medium-term, long-term and vision. The actual time that is represented depends on the industry and associated rate of change. Roadmaps of between 2 years (software) and 100 years (national energy systems) have been observed, but for many businesses the following timeframes are appropriate: short-term 1-year budget horizon; medium- term 3-year strategy horizon; and long-term 10-year ‘radar’ horizon. A non-linear scale is often used to represent these time horizons, with more space devoted to the short and medium term, where the density of information is likely to be greatest. ‘The quality of the roadmap is largely dictated by the breadth and depth of expertise and knowledge of the participants in the workshop, and so careful consideration should be given to this during the planning phase. It is important to have a healthy mix of commercial and technical representation, and external views are useful. The process benefits from diversity of perspectives, and the facilitation techniques need to be able to deal with the potential conflicts that may arise. The structure of the roadmap provides an initial checklist for ensuring that all important perspectives are represented in the workshop. For company applications this will generally include participation from business, market, application and technology functions. Senior management support is vital if the process is to have impact, and to ‘ensure participation is given appropriate priority. Workshop dates may be dictated by key participants’ diaries, often resulting in lead-times of 4-8 weeks. Participants should be sent joining instructions, briefing material and any required pre-work approximately two weeks prior to the workshop. For sector level foresight applications a range of industrial, academic and government participation is typical. Recruitment of workshop participants is more of a challenge for these cases, and considerable effort may be required to ensure success. Suitable participants should be -114-| identified early in the process, and as a rule of thumb one can expect 30- 50% recruitment success, with personal contacts and follow up communication improving the response. It can be expected that a few participants will not turn up on the day, and so it is prudent to plan for several additional participants for this contingency, A suitable venue is required, with the key requirement being sufficient space for activities, including breakout sessions. Plenty of floor and wall space is needed to accommodate the interactive nature of the workshops. For the plenary sessions the room should ideally be approximately double the size required for a traditional conference meeting involving the same number of participants. It is helpful if the room is reconfigurable, allowing tables and chairs to be moved for different activities. The room should be arranged with tables in either aU’ shape or as ‘islands’, to facilitate interaction. It is advisable to view the room arrangements prior to the workshop, and to book the venue well in advance. It is essential that charts can be stuck up on the walls — if the venue does not allow this then suitable poster-boards should be sourced. Roadmap-inspired structures are used to guide the overall process and most of the workshop activities, although other tools and frameworks can be used to enhance or supplement the method. For example, a portfolio selection matrix can support topic prioritisation if appropriate (see Chapter 5). Professional printers can be used to produce the workshop charts, in colour if useful ~ allow enough time for printing and checking templates, as these are critical for the workshop process. Alternatively, charts can be created using flip chart paper, sticky tape and pens, wl ensures flexibility during workshops if there is a need to refocus or adapt the process. In addition to structured templates, a range of other stationery is required for roadmapping workshops: + A plentiful supply of sticky notes, in a range of sizes, shapes and colours. Colours can be used for specific purposes (for example, if different business units are represented), although the main reason for using a range of colours is to help participants to navigate the content on the charts more easily. Different shapes (for example, arrows) are helpful for highlighting specific topics and issues during workshop activities. + Sticky dots are useful for quick voting processes. Again, colour can be helpful, for example to rank options in terms of both reward and risk. * Sticky tape, to construct charts from flip chart paper if required, and to secure all sticky notes at the end of the workshop. * Masking tape or other devices to stick charts on walls. -115-+ Miscellaneous stationery, such as flip chart paper, scissors and felt- tip pens for ease of writing on sticky notes. 4.2.3 Running a fast-start workshop ‘The facilitation approach is fairly light, in the sense that the main focus of the workshop is on group-based activities, where it is the participants’ experience and knowledge that is key, with interaction supported by the provision of structured frameworks (charts), clear steps and the means to capture, share and organise perspectives (sticky notes). The overall workshop agenda needs to be designed to meet the agreed aims, with the time available broken down into logical steps. ‘The ways in which sessions are facilitated, and what can be achieved within a given time period, depend on the size of the group, as illustrated in Fig. 4.5: + Small groups (<5) can generally self-organise, with fairly minimal facilitation support. There is a trade-off between coherence and diversity. One person can draw a very neat roadmap, but it is only their view. Incorporating additional perspectives is hugely valuable for addressing complex and open-ended topics, although it becomes much more of a challenge to develop a coherent and agreed output. Small groups can be relied on to deliver a result, with periodic review and support if required. Groups of 5 or more will find it difficult to proceed without active facilitation or guidance. + Medium sized groups (5 ~ 10) require facilitation, supported by some knowledge of the topic of interest to enable active engagement. For this size of group the roadmap framework enables the topic to be tackled in a structured and logical way, with discussion guided by the facilitator and captured on wall charts. + Large groups (> 10) require more formal and specialised facilitation techniques, with the activities orchestrated and managed professionally, often by a team of facilitators for workshops with 15- 20 participants or more, Large group activities can be somewhat mechanistic, and so should be balanced appropriately with smaller group activities. From a facilitator’s perspective, timing is a key aspect to manage. Such ‘workshops are very interactive and intense, and owing to the complex issues being considered and the large number of participants it is very easy for sessions to overrun, Larger groups invariably take longer to perform activities. It is vital that tight control of timing is maintained, While at the same time allowing for some flexibility, due to the inherently exploratory nature of roadmapping. It is vital that a satisfactory = 116- sconclusion is reached by the end of the workshop, and every effort should be made to finish on time. Participants 1 5 10 15 30 Group size: +> small f Settorganising ‘Medium Guided aiscussion Large ae rchestrates Fig. 4.5 Facilitation approach depends on group size Considering these issues during the planning phase allows for contingencies to be built into the process. Breaks in the agenda provide natural review points to ensure that the process is on track, and if required, short unscheduled breaks can be used to address key issues that arise. Judgement must be exercised concerning how much time can be devoted to discussion of issues as they arise. Once the nature of the issue is clear, if itis not critical to the logic of the workshop process, then it is generally advisable to note the issue on a flip chart sheet maintained for this purpose, for review at a later stage. Be aware that the pace of activities tends to be slower at the start, as participants familiarise themselves with the process, and then to speed up. Having two facilitators available is very helpful, in terms of splitting and rotating roles, allowing more complex group activities to be managed. Having a small supporting team available is useful, to review progress during breaks and to deal with unanticipated issues that may arise. This team would typically include the organisational sponsors of the roadmapping process, and /or their representatives, together with the facilitation team. 4.2.4 After a fast-start workshop ‘An immediate task after the workshop is to transcribe all of the outputs as, a full record of the event, and to interpret and summarise the outputs to create a report for circulation to participants for comment. For companies, it is recommended that the group work be captured and summarised by the groups themselves, as an immediate action, using -u7T-templates provided for consistency, while for sector level applications the facilitation team would normally undertake this task. It is recommended that presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint) be used for reporting in the first instance, as this encourages an appropriate level of synthesis and summary, content can be extracted for presentation purposes, and it can be used as a resource for more formal reporting if required. The report can also be circulated and presented to a wider group for validation and dissemination purposes. It should also be recognised that the workshop is one (critical) step within a wider process, even if it is being used as a one-off problem solving technique. Consideration should be given to the actions required to move forward, and whether and how the roadmap will be updated as an element of this process (part of the final review discussion during workshops). For companies this is often linked to other core business processes, such as an annual strategy / budget cycle, or review points within research or new product development processes. 4.3 Business / sector level roadmapping (S-Plan) ‘The $-Plan process is appropriate for application at a high level, with the ability to rapidly cover a broad scope (‘landscape’), identifying, prioritising and exploring key issues, strategic options and innovation ‘opportunities (‘landmarks’), leading to decisions and actions. The ‘method can be applied at the business unit, corporate, sector or policy level, or for other large complex systems, and is suited to the front-end of strategy and innovation processes (Fig. 4.2), typically involving 15-25 participants (although more are possible with careful design and a team of facilitators). The approach is suitable as a first step in a roadmapping process, focusing on key issues of current strategic concern (problem solving), in order to deliver early benefits, in terms of business outcomes, process learning and team / network development. 4.3.1. S-Plan process ‘The standard (reference) S-Plan workshop agenda described below is for one day, the most common format. Longer workshops, or a series of workshops, may be required for corporate and sector applications, depending on scope and complexity, and the level of organisational commitment. The one-day format is efficient as a first step, reducing costs and risks of roadmap implementation to the organisation, particularly if the workshop is designed to address specific strategic =118- dassissues of current concer. The detailed structures, activities and timings are usually adapted to an extent to address the particular organisational context and aims, although workshops typically involve the following steps (see Fig. 4.6): 1) Strategic landscape: considering the full scope of the business, the roadmap framework is used to share and capture perspectives from all participants (landscape), identifying and prioritising strategic topics (landmarks) for further exploration, and establishing key linkages, 2) Topic exploration: in small groups, the roadmap framework is used to articulate the nature of the topics (issues, options or opportunities) and associated vision and goals, to map how they could be achieved, and to identify key learning points (for example, enablers, barriers, risks, decision points and knowledge gaps). 3) Review: topics are presented for discussion, to agree which to take forward, and how to do so (typically linked to business strategy and innovation processes). Fig. 4.6 ~ Typical S-Plan workshop activities, showing strategic landscape and example topic roadmap The following agenda provides a reference point for design purposes, but should be adapted, compressed or expanded depending on context and requirements: -119-08:45 Arrival and refreshments 09:00 Aims, introductions, agenda and process 09:30 Participant perspectives (short presentations) 10:30 Refreshment break 10:45 Strategic landscape activity (plenary) a) Market trends and drivers b) Products and services ©) Technology and resources 13:00 Lunch 13:45 Topic exploration activity (small group) 15:30 Refreshment break 15:45. Feedback and discussion 17:00 Review, way forward and actions 17:30 Close Time is a scarce resource in workshops, and the effectiveness of the workshop can be maximised with some preparation and pre-work. In particular, it is desirable to build on existing sources of good quality information, and to encourage participants to think carefully about the topic of interest prior to the workshop. Two practical approaches to dealing with these challenges are: 1. Sending participants a one-page presentation template in advance, for brief presentation at the start of the workshop, is a good way of encouraging participants to think carefully and as a means for capturing available information for input into the workshop. The roadmap structure is typically used a basis for design of this template. The use of only one page (slide) has the benefits of encouraging a high level summary and not taking too much time to prepare or deliver — workshops often start with a short series of “perspectives” presentations (typically 3-5 minutes each). Participants are encouraged to submit their perspectives in advance of the workshop, which can then be captured on the roadmap chart during the workshop. 2. Pre-populating the roadmap chart with available good quality information provides a firm basis for subsequent activities, and ‘ensures that the process builds on what is already known and what has already been done. For companies, information may be available in strategic plans, market research, technical and other documents. The public-domain roadmaps in Appendix B, together with other similar documents, provide a good source of market and technical data, covering many areas of industry and technology. This information can be reviewed, summarised and incorporated into the roadmap template as an input to the workshop. -120-The briefing note sent to participants in advance of the workshop should be concise, relevant and balanced, and should include the background and aims of the workshop, location, timing and instructions for any pre- work required. Providing participants with appropriate structures to guide and capture their discussion is a key element of roadmapping workshops: + The strategic landscape template used in the plenary activity during the first half of the workshop should be printed very large ~ typically 4xA0 in scale. + The topic roadmap template used in the afternoon small-group breakout sessions is usually printed on AO or Al sized paper, based on the same structure that is used for the landscape, but typically without as much detail, just depicting the broad layers. Depending on the nature and scope of the topics being, addressed, other structures may be used to guide discussion, although these should be kept quite simple. Usually a feedback template is also provided to summarise the learning points from the activity. A roadmap should be considered as a ‘picture that tells a story’, and encouraging participants to articulate the narrative in preparation for feedback will improve the quality and logic of the roadmap. The baseline S-Plan workshop agenda is revisited below, in order to highlight key facilitation issues and techniques. 09:00 Aims, introductions, agenda and process Workshops seldom start on time, and as a rule of thumb ten ‘minutes should be allowed for this initial delay. Typically the background and aims should be presented by the organisational sponsor, handing over to the facilitation team to run through the agenda and approach, allowing time for a round of brief introductions from participants. 09:30 Participant perspectives (short presentations) Ideally, all participants should make a short presentation, using the one-page presentation template described above, collected in advance. If time is constrained then particular perspectives can be selected (for example, commercial and technical). Strict timekeeping is essential, and depending on the number of participants 3-5 minutes per presentation should be allowed, providing for a high level snapshot of each perspective. It is recommended that the facilitator keep control of the computer presentation slides, with each participant presenting their -121-10:30 10:45 perspective from where they are sitting. While perspectives are being presented paper copies of each can be placed on the large landscape chart. Participants should be provided with sticky notes at the beginning of the session, and encouraged to capture any ideas that are stimulated by the presentations, as an input to the next session. Break The break provides an opportunity for the facilitation team and sponsor to review progress and deal with any emerging issues. Strategic landscape activity (plenary) @) Market trends and drivers 4) Products and services ©) Technology and resources The purpose of the landscape activity is to capture participant knowledge across the full scope of the topic of interest, including all timeframes. The baseline S-Plan approach presented here takes a market pull approach, although other options are possible (for example, technology push or vision led). For the market pull approach the session is generally divided into three sessions, considering each of the broad why, what and how layers of the landscape in turn, The activity for each layer is quite similar, starting with a brainstorm to capture views, followed by a process to identify the most important aspects. For the second and third layers participants should identify the key linkages to the layer above for each idea captured. In this way the landscape chart is progressively filled, with the linkages captured, enabling Key technology developments to be related to important application areas and external drivers. The main output from the landscape activity, in terms of what is required for the next workshop step, is an agreed set of priority topics to focus on. A number of strategies can be employed to identify topics of interest, in combination if appropriate: 1) Similar information can be clustered, which is automatically achieved to an extent by the structure of the roadmap (layers and timeframes). However ideas can be clustered further within layers, which requires the assistance of a second facilitator to process the information captured on sticky notes, and also some discipline on the part of participants to ensure that dates and timeframes are captured on sticky notes -122-} so they can be moved for clustering purposes without losing information relating to their original positioning on the chart. 2) The process can be focused on particular issues or topics of interest and importance, providing participants with one or two arrow-shaped sticky notes each (for example, to identify akey opportunity and threat each). 3) Topics of interest can be prioritised to provide a ranked list. ‘The quickest way to achieve this is through ‘dot voting’, where a number of small coloured stickers are provided to each participant to identify the topics of greatest importance with respect to agreed criteria, If a more rigorous approach to selection is required then methods such as weighted scoring and portfolio matrices can be used (described in more detail in Chapter 5), although the time required for this will need to be enabled by reducing or omitting other activities, or extending the workshop duration, 13:00 Lunch 13:45 The lunch break provides an opportunity for the facilitation team and sponsor to review progress and deal with any emerging issues. It is important that an appropriate set of topics is taken forward into the next session for the small group activity. It may be sensible to refine or group certain topics, or select a particular set to achieve a balanced portfolio (for example, a mix of incremental and radical innovations). Also, the topics need to be matched with expertise of the participants in the workshop. The proposed approach should be presented for discussion at the start of the next session. Topic exploration activity (small group) ‘The purpose of this activity is to explore the key topics identified in the landscape activity in more depth, in small groups. The standard S-Plan process uses topic roadmap templates to support this process, based on the same structure used for the landscape activity, but typically with only the broad layers included, as illustrated in Fig. 4.7. In addition, a second template is provided for summarising key learning points for feedback and reporting purposes, based on headings that might be found in a business case or research proposal. Other structures may be appropriate, depending on the nature of the topic, the time available and the size of the groups. For the topic roadmap activity the ideal number of participants is 3 (although 2 or 4 is acceptable, -123-depending on the number and mix of participants). Groups of this size can self-organise for what is a creative and open-ended challenge ~ diversity within the groups (for example, multiple functions) is desirable. Step 1: summarise key i" | drivers, constraints, ‘assumptions ‘Step 4: Use roadmap Ss structure to map step 3: route forward ‘Summarise current situation Step 5: Highlight key risks, ‘enablers, barriers, decision points and knowledge gaps aS a Fig. 4.7 — Typical S-Plan topic roadmap (top) and feedback templates ‘The topic roadmapping activity is an exploratory approach, using the roadmap template to guide and capture discussion with sticky notes, to understand the topic better and to identify key learning points and actions that would be required to take the topic -124-15:30 15:45 17:00 17:30 forward, if desirable. It is important that groups take ownership of the topic, and at their discretion they may find it necessary or helpful to refine, broaden or recast the topic as part of the process, as the issues are better understood. Based on the starting provided by the landscape activity, the group should review the key drivers that influence the topic, together with linkages to other layers of the landscape, considering any assumptions or constraints that might apply. The critical step is to establish an appropriate vision and associated long-term targets. Based on a review of the current status, intermediate targets should be established, and related market, application, technology and resource issues considered. Reviewing key learning points is an important final step — for example, to identify enablers, barriers, risks, decision points, options, knowledge gaps and actions. Break ‘The break provides an opportunity for the facilitation team and sponsor to review progress and deal with any emerging issues. Feedback and discussion Each group should present their output and leaming points for discussion, to enable a broader range of views to be expressed, and the group work updated if appropriate. Time management is an important issue for the facilitation team for this session, as it is forall others. Review, way forward and actions A key principle of the fast-start approach, as a first iteration in a process or as a single problem solving application, is that clear results should be achieved in terms of decisions made and actions agreed. In addition, the workshop and roadmapping process itself should be reviewed to identify learning points if the process is to be repeated or taken forward. Close Workshop outputs should be transcribed and a full report drafied as soon as possible for distribution to participants for comment, to ensure that the Teport accurately represents views expressed in the workshop. Post- processing of the strategic landscape can present a challenge, owing to the broad scope and density and variety of information captured. The key to this is the prioritisation and linkage tasks that form a key part of the -125-landscape activity, which enables important information and relationships to be identified. The goal is typically to produce two one- page summary graphical outputs from the landscape, with the first focusing on the relationships between layers and/or topics (using QFD- style linkage grids), and the second on the time dimension (using the roadmap structure). Examples of such outputs are included Section 4.3.23, below. ‘The landscape can also be mined for further insights. For example, it is important to balance the consensus-based outputs from the process with alternative and challenging views (similar to the minority report of Motorola, discussed in Chapter 1). The content from the landscape can be filtered, organised and summarised to create strategic narratives for the various themes and sub-themes represented in the roadmap, which can be presented in both graphical and text based formats to summarise the anticipated developments and issues for each area (see Section 4.3.2.4 for an example). 4.3.2. S-Plan case examples Four short cases are presented below, which illustrate the use of S-Plan workshop methods at business and sector levels. Similar workshop approaches and facilitation techniques were applied within all of them, but with the overall process and template structures customised to suit the particular circumstances. 4.3.2.1 Case A— Manufacturing business reconfiguration (mechanical devices) ‘This case relates to a medium sized manufacturing firm based in Europe that develops and manufactures precision plastic injection moulded mechanical devices. The stimulus for roadmapping was the desire to substantially increase R&D funding, with technological innovation seen as the route to higher value business and growth. ‘A one-day multifunctional workshop was held with approximately 15 senior managers, including strong commercial and technical representation. A vision-led approach was adopted, with the initial focus of the landscaping activity the 10-year vision, starting with technology (see Fig. 4.8). Once the long-term direction was explored for each functional perspective (business / market, capability / products, technology and organisation), the current position was established. This -126-enabled strategic challenges (gaps) to be articulated, leading to a set of aligned and agreed actions. Filg, 4.8 — Case A: vision-led roadmapping, showing vision, current status and strategic gaps on left, and resulting actions on right In a second round, a year later, the strategy was reviewed in 2-day workshop, attended by about 25 participants from across the company. The purpose was to revisit and align functional strategies and plans with the overall business strategy. The landscape was pre-populated with information extracted from the business strategy, and a market-pull process used to explore each of the functional perspectives. On the second day participants split into functional groups, to review the outputs from the first day and to develop a more considered view for each function (a second iteration). These were fed back to the main group, issues and risks discussed and an integrated action plan agreed. In this case the company used roadmapping on an occasional basis to support strategic planning, with each workshop being designed as a one- off activity. 4.3.2.2 Case B- Corporate research alignment (packaging) This case focuses on a large global packaging company with a central European corporate R&D facility and business units distributed around the world, organised in terms of geography and product lines (Fig. 4.9). The company had grown through a series of acquisitions, with the corporate R&D centre a legacy from one of the original companies. The central research laboratory provided troubleshooting and development support, funded directly by business units on a project basis. A tax was -127-levied on the business units to fund longer-term research, focusing on new materials, products and processes. ‘A key challenge for the company was a lack of alignment between business unit goals, which tended to focus on the short- and medium- term, and investment in longer term R&D in the research laboratory. There was a history of interesting technology developments that were not taken up by the business units, leading to questions being raised about the value provided by the central laboratory, and associated budget concerns. Fig, 4.9 — Case B: corporate research alignment ‘A series of 2-day workshops was held, each focusing on particular business units, bringing together staff from both organisations, with the commercial perspective provided by the business unit and the technological perspective by the corporate R&D centre. The process was piloted first in one business unit, and then applied across other key business and technology areas. In each case, three key people worked together to plan and run the workshop, and ensure that the outputs were taken forward, both within the business unit and the research laboratory, leading to a realignment of research programmes and a series of new product and process developments: 1) Senior manager within the central research laboratory, responsible for the interface with the business unit. This person tended to instigate the process, liaising with the business unit to gain their commitment, making sure that appropriate technical experts participated in the workshop, and ensuring that the outputs were implemented within the laboratory. = 128-2) General manager of the business unit, who ultimately owned the resulting roadmaps that were generated in each workshop, which focused on innovation opportunities and strategic options for the business unit. This person ensured that the business objectives were clearly understood, making sure that appropriate commercial, development and managerial staff participated in the workshop, and that the outputs were implemented within the business. 3) Facilitator, familiar with roadmapping techniques, who helped to design and coordinate the process, and facilitate the workshops. This role was undertaken by an external facilitator for the first three workshops, transferring to research laboratory staff’ as experience was gained. The main outputs from each workshop were a prioritised set of innovation opportunities and strategic options for the business units, and agreed plans to take these forward, combined with an understanding of the technologies needed to support these plans. The priorities established during the roadmapping process were compared to the current R&D portfolio. Where existing programmes were identified that matched the business unit priorities these were strengthened, where gaps were identified budgets were reallocated, and projects where there was no link to business needs were stopped. In terms of benefits, the roadmapping process led to a reinvigorated innovation strategy in the business units involved, with new opportunities identified and pursued. The corporate research budget was realigned, inked clearly to the future business needs of the company. The process resulted in much stronger relationships between business units and the research laboratory, and improved pull-through of technology into the business. 43.2.3 Case C — National research priorities for emerging technology (measurement science) ‘The Measurement and Standards for Emerging Technologies (MSET) series of roadmaps’ were developed in 2006, to identify measurement technology needs and research themes for a number of key UK sectors, A series of one-day workshops was held, each relating to a different sector: Environmentally friendly transport, Secure environment, Sustainable consumption & production, Emerging energy technologies, Healthcare & bio-science, Intelligent connected world, Design, engineering & advanced manufacture, and the Built environment. * wor technology-readmaps.c0.uk -129-More than 100 non-NMS (National Measurement System) participants were directly involved in workshops, including industry (large and small companies), trade associations, universities and the public sector (government departments and agencies, and research networks). ‘The main outputs from this process are illustrated in Fig. 4.10 for one of the workshops, showing the linkage grids and time-based views produced from the landscape activity. Further consultation the wider community enabled the outputs from the workshops to be tested and refined. The results have been published on the internet to encourage dissemination and comment, using the main graphical outputs as a navigational aid. ‘A ninth workshop focused on crosscutting themes and synergies, drawing on the results from the eight sector workshops. This was enabled by the use of consistent structures and workshop methods across all eight sectors. As well as common measurement issues, a large degree of commonality in industry drivers was observed across the eight sectors. The project led to a refocus and alignment of measurement research programmes in the UK. ‘This approach is similar to that which has been applied in corporate applications, where there is a desire to improve alignment between business unit and corporate strategies. The roadmap framework provides the integrating framework that allows the outputs from the business unit activity to be explored in a cross-cutting multi-business unit workshop. 4.3.2.4 Case D — National research priorities and network development (automotive sector) ‘The Foresight Vehicle programme’ is administered by the UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT). The initiative has been running for more than ten years, providing a national focus for technology development within the automotive sector in the UK. More than 100 individual projects have been generated, covering a wide range of manufacturing processes and product concepts. ‘A major roadmapping initiative was undertaken in 2002 (see Fig. 4.11), with the aims of identifying the technology areas that would benefit from support and building the network of organisations involved. The process for developing the first version of the roadmap involved a total of 10 workshops over a period of 10 months, involving more than 130 “wou foresightvehicl org.ukparticipants from 60 organisations (including industry, academia and government) opersomeman ) etna ines nn | Saeee awn Seal Fig. 4.10 - Case C: MSET executive summary roadmap (landscape) views for ‘environmentally friendly transport’, showing key linkages above (two linked grids, relating market drivers to applications and measurement), and time-based view below -131-Fig. 4.11 ~ Case D: Foresight Vehicle Technology Roadmap report (version 1), showing high-level roadmap for hybrid, electric and alternatively fuelled vehicles One of the challenges associated with writing a substantial roadmap report such as this one is representing the volume of information and complexity of issues in a way that is easy to navigate for the reader. The roadmap structures that were used in the workshops provided the basis for structuring the content of the report, as illustrated in Fig. 4.12. The approach taken was to create a series of detailed one-page views for each of the 28 themes covered in the workshops, for inclusion in the appendices of the report. Workshop outputs provided the primary source for these views, supplemented by published documents, particularly for the trends and drivers layer. Information captured in this way was organised and reviewed in order to articulate the expected developments for that theme. These strategic narratives were developed into the text in the main body of the report. New diagrams were created to illustrate the strategic narratives, representing a higher-level summary of the content, and the main body of the report was then reviewed to create an executive summary. The hierarchical structure of the report, governed by the unifying common language provided by the roadmap framework, helps the reader to navigate the document, focusing on particular areas of interest. ‘The Foresight Vehicle Technology Roadmap has been widely disseminated, and has become a key reference point within the UK automotive sector, and internationally. The success of the first roadmap is demonstrated by the fact that the SMMT commissioned an update in 2004 and a third revision due in 2009, -132-Fig. 4.12~ Case D: Trends and drivers for Foresight Vehicle Technology Roadmap, showing how six detailed one-page views are summarised into a single one-page diagram 4.4 Product level roadmapping (T-Plan) The T-Plan approach focuses on integrated product-technology strategic planning. The process brings together 8-12 participants from across the organisation to develop a draft roadmap for a product (or product family), in four half-day workshops: 1) Market: external market and internal business drivers ate identified, categorised and prioritised for key market segments. Business strategy is reviewed and knowledge gaps identified. 2) Product: potential product features, functions and attributes are identified and prioritised with respect to how strongly they address the drivers. Product strategy is reviewed and knowledge gaps identified. 3) Technology: potential technological solutions for developing the product features are identified and prioritised and knowledge gaps identified. ~133-4) Charting: based on the outputs from the first three workshops, the initial roadmap is developed, linking market, product and technology perspectives, decisions are made and actions agreed. The T-Plan process is summarised below, including two company examples to illustrate the approach. For detailed guidance, including facilitation aspects, the reader is referred to the T-Plan guide (Phaal et al., 2001). 4.4.1. T-Plan process ‘The underlying roadmapping principles are common to both the S-Plan and T-Plan processes, although the focus is more specifically at the product level (including associated market and technology perspectives). ‘The main differences are: + The focus on a single product or closely related product family requires greater granularity than for S-Plan, particularly in terms of market drivers (customer purchase motivations) and product functionality, performance and features. For large-scale complex products an S-Plan type approach may be appropriate in the first instance. + Workshop participants should be selected for their expertise in relation to the product area of interest. Typically this might involve 8-12 experts, including commercial and technical perspectives, with participants taking part in all four workshops. + The process is separated into four half-day modules, covering market, product and technology aspects in turn, before developing the draft roadmap in the final workshop. + The structure of the roadmap is developed as part of the workshop process, and so does not need to be defined during the planning stage. + QFD-style linkage grids are used as a key part of the process, to explore the relationships between market, product and technology perspectives, and to prioritise efforts. ‘The T-Plan approach is summarised in Fig. 4.13, with workshops described in more detail below. Day 1 — Market 09:00 Introduction Workshops seldom start on time, and as a rule of thumb ten minutes should be allowed for this initial delay. Typically the - 134+09°30 ) onl — See ‘Soe Sle background and aims should be presented by the organisational sponsor, handing over to the facilitation team to run through the agenda and approach, allowing time for a round of brief roductions from participants. Performance dimensions Although the focus of the first workshop is on the market, and in particular customer purchase motivations, it has been found that tackling this directly can be challenging, and a quick brainstorm of key product performance dimensions provides a good starting point (for example, ease of use, cost and size). The most important performance dimensions should be highlighted. Tesora week a poeas arty hoe ‘arcane Fig. 4.13 ~T-Plan process for product-technology strategic planning 10:00 Market / business drivers External market drivers are brainstormed (customer purchase motivations), using the performance drivers from the previous session as a starting point (a ‘level up’, addressing the question ‘why are these performance dimensions valuable?’). These are grouped into clusters (typically ten or less). The process is = 135-repeated for internal business drivers, to understand other strategic factors that influence the innovation choices available to the company. 11:00 Break The break provides an opportunity for the facilitation team and company sponsor to review progress and deal with any emerging. issues. 11:15 Prioritisation of drivers Potential market segments are identified, and the most interesting selected for further discussion. For each of these segments the market (customer) drivers are ranked in terms of relative importance. 11:45 SWOT analysis The strategic context within which the product innovation will lake place is reviewed, using a SWOT framework to brainstorm extemal opportunities and threats, together with internal strengths and weaknesses. 12:15 Gaps As a final step, key market knowledge gaps are identified (for example, customers, competitors and legislation), some of which may be addressed before the second workshop. 12:30 Close The outputs from the workshop should be transcribed and circulated to participants, and any actions arising from the workshop undertaken. Day 2 Product 09:00 Introduction Outputs from the first workshop should be summarised briefly, and participants reminded of the aims, approach and agenda, ~136-09:15 10:45 11:00 | 12:00 Product feature concepts Based on the market (customer) drivers identified in Workshop I, as many product features, functions and performance aspects aS possible should be brainstormed, including service opportunities if appropriate. It is important to avoid discussion about technology at this stage ~ focus on ‘the product brochure of the future’. These should be grouped into clusters to define areas for potential innovation (typically ten or less), so that their potential impact on the market drivers can be assessed in the next session. These product areas are used to define sub-layers in the roadmap (Workshop 4). Break ‘The break provides an opportunity for the facilitation team and company sponsor to review progress and deal with any emerging issues. Impact of product features ‘A QFD-style matrix is used for this purpose, as illustrated in Fig. 4.13 and in Cases E and F below. The market / business drivers and product areas define the columns and rows, respectively. Each row is taken in turn, and the question asked ‘if we were to invest in this area, which drivers would be satisfied?" (a ‘push’ question), with the relative impact of each product area ranked for each market and business driver. Then the grid is “balanced” by reviewing each column, and asking the question ‘if we want to satisfy this driver, which product areas have the most potential?” (a ‘pull’ question), and the scores are adjusted as appropriate, The overall score for each product area is then calculated, weighted by the relative importance of the market drivers. Product strategy Iftime allows, the product strategy is reviewed to understand the overall innovation approach to be followed. For example: what are the key differentiators? what price point is appropriate? what product platforms will be developed? what might the product family look like? -137-12:15 Gaps As a final step, key product knowledge gaps are identified (for example, customer requirements and competitor positions), some of which may be addressed before the third workshop. 12:30 Close ‘The outputs from the workshop should be transcribed and circulated to participants, and any actions arising from the ‘workshop undertaken. Day 3- Technology 09:00 Introduction Outputs from the first two workshops should be summarised briefly, and participants reminded of the aims, approach and agenda, 09:30 Technological solutions Based on the product feature concepts, functions and Performance requirements identified in Workshop 2, as many technology solutions as possible should be brainstormed. These should be grouped into clusters to define areas of technical capability (typically ten or less), so that their potential impact on the product drivers can be assessed in the next session. These technology areas are used to define sub-layers in the roadmap (Workshop 4), 11:00 Break The break provides an opportunity for the facilitation team and company sponsor to review progress and deal with any emerging issues. 11:15 Impact of technological solutions A second QFD-style matrix is used for this purpose, as illustrated in Fig. 4.13 and in Case E below. The product and technology areas define the columns and rows, respectively, incorporating the product drivers (priorities) identified in Workshop 2 and ~138-12:15 12:30 using a similar process to assess the impact of each technology area, Gaps As a final step, key technology knowledge gaps are identified (for example, state of the art, technical forecasts), some of which may be addressed before the final workshop. Close The outputs from the workshop should be transcribed and circulated to participants, and any actions arising from the workshop undertaken, Day 4 — Charting 09:00 09:15 10:30 Introduction Outputs fiom the first three workshops should be summarised briefly, and participants reminded of the aims, approach and agenda Roadmapping Confirm the focus, scope and format of roadmap, corresponding to a large prepared template on a wall chart. The product and technology sub-layers are defined by the clustered areas identified in Workshops 2 and 3, with the timeframe sufficient for depicting 2-3 innovation cycles. The product vision and strategic requirements are reviewed, and key milestones established, by broadly specifying the product functionality and performance for each version. This requires a negotiation between the market / commercial and technology / resource Perspectives, to balance the pull and push tradeoffs and alignment. ‘The market, product and technology impact assessments from Workshops 1-3 provide a rationale for guiding this discussion, Break The break provides an opportunity for the facilitation team and company sponsor to review progress and deal with any emerging issues. = 139-10:45 Roadmapping continued. Technical programmes are defined, and other aspects of the innovation strategy discussed, guided by the roadmap structure (for example, market drivers, competitors, customers, business strategy, services, operations and resources). Key linkages are mapped, decision points identified and risks reviewed. 12:00 Gaps /way forward As a final step, review key learning points and actions, relating to the innovation strategy, and also the roadmapping process itself. 12:30 Close ‘The outputs from the workshop should be transcribed and circulated to participants, ensuring that actions are undertaken and that the process is taken forward as appropriate. 4.4.2. T-Plan case examples ‘Two company examples are included below which illustrate the T-Plan method. 4.4.2.1 Case E— New product development (software) A smalll software company based in the UK was considering a major re- development of an older software product, aimed at a new niche market in the pharmaceuticals industry (Phaal er al, 2001). Technology roadmapping provided a means for supporting product planning, to assess the viability of the proposed development. ‘The standard T-Plan process was followed, with four half-day workshops attended by about 12 senior members of staff from both technical and commercial functions. Figures 4.14a&b show the main outputs from the second and third (product and technology) workshops — the market- product and product-technology linkage grids. These summarise the customer and company drivers, the main product and technology areas, and the relationships between these. A weighted scoring system enables product and technology areas to be prioritised on the basis of their contribution to the market and business drivers. -140-wm 8 A =. |! a7 —_ TENE IE uF ee \ TAA ER Ends alii Thlelelele| ee Shang eae a eye Lima afay ess 7 eel onan 7 /[W eli YLapa pees] ose os esti inpewmmaston |] | / alate OF ee semen {ITI Ane so Fig, 4.14a— Case E: Market-Product linkage grid Se ete e sees alll 1 | HAE] ab es 4 le] ie» ow oe 2 System atte yi de ayepetat sy] we we mo See ai |e i ne cee em 450m wemaotoges EAE t ala] ss oes see EEE EEE ER oo ‘€Securmg ectaotagies | J! é Jee x see ee ed 7 Boo Fig, 4.146 ~ Case E: Product-Technology linkage grid Figure 4.15 is a transcription of the outputs from the final workshop, where the commercial and technical views are brought together to define the product strategy in detail, together with the associated technology developments. A key part of the debate within the workshop related to the timing of features in terms of software version release dates. This revolved around the tension between the desirability of a feature (market -141-pull) and the capability and effort required to develop the feature (technology push). The outputs from the first three workshops provide a basis for addressing this issue, to help prioritise feature development, and achieve an alignment between market, product and technology strategy. Fig. 4.15 — Case E: First-eut roadmap On the basis of this roadmapping activity it was decided not to proceed with the product development, because the required investment in staff and facilities was too great a step change for the company given its size. ‘This was considered to be a positive result, avoiding the large waste of effort and management attention that might have resulted if they had proceeded. The company subsequently applied the roadmapping approach again within another part to their business, to support the development of a core product. 4.4.2.2 Case F — Aligning technology and product developments (industrial printing) This case describes how a medium-sized company (1,500 employees) that develops and manufactures printing solutions for industrial applications implemented roadmapping over a period of several years (Phaal et al., 2008). -142-The business is organised primarily around four business units, each focusing on a different product line, with some overlap in technology and markets. The company headquarters are in Europe, co-located with core design and manufacturing operations, with regional centres and sales and support organisations based around the world, in more than 150 countries. The company is 30 years old, and has a strong technology heritage. As the company has grown in size and complexity, new technologies have been acquired and the product range expanded, with a need to establish methods to manage the effective acquisition and integration of technology into the core new product introduction process, AS a technology-based company, the firm was particularly aware that developing new technologies (or other competences) could take a long time. The company had had experience of including new technologies in product development projects before they were fully tried and tested. The result had always been delay and disappointment. To avoid this it was clear that they needed a coherent product-technology strategy so that innovations could be developed in advance and then brought to market quickly and securely when required, and roadmapping was selected as the most appropriate approach. Roadmapping was first applied in the largest and oldest business unit, which is based on mature continuous inkjet printing technology. The main outcomes of this application were the recognition that too many projects were being pursued and that there was a lack of confidence that the market drivers were up-to-date. A market research study was undertaken, and the roadmap revised, and a series of new product initiatives followed. Based on this experience the method was rolled out to the other parts of the business. The market-product linkage grid from the second (product) workshop is shown in Fig. 4.16, linking market and business drivers to product areas (functions and features). A core benefit of this activity, and the product- technology grid in the third workshop, is the dialogue that it stimulates between participants, linking market, product and technology perspectives, Figure 4.17 shows an example of the first roadmap developed in one of the business units, forming the basis of an iterative process for reviewing and updating the roadmap on a regular basis. Figure 4.18 shows a more recent version of this roadmap, illustrating how the method evolved over 4 period of several years (Fig. 4.18a shows the underlying roadmap, with the feature and performance evolution overlaid in Fig. 4.18b). -143-Prortaton: 7 2 0 2 6 2 lower is ale ea Sr eee See ame YET ze PHP TE, Fig. 4.16 Case F: Cross-impact matrix, linking market and business drivers to product areas Fig. 4.17 ~ Case F: Initial product-technology roadmap -144-ETE eas Ts Fig. 4.18b ~ Case F: Mature product-technology roadmap (product feature / ‘performance view) = 145-‘The T-Plan fast-start Process was used in all business units in the firm, and proved an effective way to create initial roadmaps efficiently and quickly. In all cases the first roadmap showed that the existing plans and intentions were too ambitious, and had to be scaled back — a valuable early result and a useful benefit from the work. Nevertheless, managers and staff usually treated the first versions of the roadmaps with caution and only really trusted them after they had been through several iterations. These reviews, typically every six months, were crucial. They gave time for participants to gather exira data and te reflect on what had been done. Inevitably the maps evolved and stabilised with repeated discussion, with the process of debate cementing understanding and support, The roadmaps became a useful and valued tool for communicating the emerging strategy to the board and others in the company. Bringing the business unit roadmaps together helped to identify synergies that could lead to further efficiencies. 4.5 Summary Fast-start workshops provide an efficient means of using roadmapping thinking to facilitate strategic dialogue. Wall charts provide structure, used as templates to guide activities, capture perspectives, explore concepts and summarise outputs (Fig. 4.19). Participants are empowered {fo contribute and interact through the use of sticky notes within facilitated group work sessions. The process is tolerant to diversity, enabling rapid progress in complex business and organisational contexts, The S-Plan and T-Plan methods support initiation of roadmapping at strategic and product-technology levels, and can also be used as one-off. Problem solving tools. Fast-start workshop approaches are designed to be agile, in that they are flexible, rapid and problem-focused, suitable for application in both small and large organisations. A light-touch approach to roadmapping can provide an efficient and effective solution, aimed at strategic concerns of immediate relevance and encouraging a focus on the most important issues. The process learning from the first pilot and subsequent applications can be “used to plan the way forward, in terms of both strategy implementation and the roadmapping process itself. Implementation issues are covered in Chapter 5, including how roadmapping links to -146-business processes and other related management tools and frameworks, and how the visual format of roadmaps can support communication. FFig. 4.19 — S-Plan workshop: people, paper, pens and post-its 4.6 References + de Laat, B, and McKibbin, S. (2003), The effectiveness of technology road mapping - building a strategic vision, Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. * DoE (2000), ‘Applying science and technology roadmapping in environmental management’, Office of Environmental Management, US Department of Energy, July. + Industry Canada (2007a), ‘Technology roadmapping in Canada — a development guide’, Industry Canada. * Industry Canada (2007b), ‘Evaluating technology roadmaps — a framework for monitoring and measuring results’, Industry Canada, + ISR (2001), ‘Technology planning for business competitiveness — a guide to developing technology roadmaps’, Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Emerging Industries Section, August * Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2001), T-Plan: the fast- start to technology roadmapping - planning your route to success, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge. + Phaal, R., Farrukh, CLP. and Probert, D.R. (2007), ‘Strategic roadmapping: a workshop-based approach for identifying and exploring innovation issues and opportunities’, Engineering Management Journal, 19 (1), pp. 16-24 + Phaal, R., Mitchell, R. and Probert, D. (2008), “T-Plan and S-Plan fast-start roadmapping approaches’, Introduction and application of roadmapping in R&D management, Ed. $, Khotsuki, Technical Information Institute, Tokyo, pp. 73-89. -147-Smith, A. (2007), “Technology roadmapping — an opportunity for the environment?’, Science Report — SC0S0016, UK Environment Agency. Tolfree, D. and Smith, A. (2009), Roadmapping emergent technologies ~ planning the future, Matador, Leicester, ~ 148 -