Practical Study on Roadmapping

PRACTICAL STUDY ON ROADMAPPING INSIGHTS INTO PRACTICAL APPLICATION, FUTURE CHALLENGES AND SUCCESS FACTORS OF ROADMAPS IN EVERY DAY BUSINESS IN GERMANY PROF. DR. THOMAS ABELE | DR. SVEN SCHIMPF

| 2

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The objective of this practical study Technology Roadmapping is to obtain detailed insight into the practical use of technology roadmaps.

MOTIVATION What is the content of roadmaps in companies ? Where are they being used and how are they integrated ? Which source of information do companies access and by which methods are the roadmaps complemented ? What challenges do the companies face and what is their recommendation for the practical use of roadmaps ?

In order to gain new awareness on these questions , the Fraunhofer IAO in cooperation with TIM Consulting have conducted an online survey from July to September 2015.

81 out of 156 responses were considered for evaluation – exclusively focusing on companies that were applying roadmaps at the time of the study.

OVERVIEW

2

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

3

INFORMATION SOURCE AND TRANSFER

4

INFORMATION SOURCE : EVOLUTION

5

METHODOLOGICAL CONNECTION

6

METHODOLOGICAL CONNECTION : EVOLUTION

7

APPLICATION AND RESPONSIBLE FUNCTIONS

8

FREQUENCY OF UPDATE

9 PITFALLS 10 CHALLENGES 11

SOFTWARE SUPPORT

12 COMPANIES INVOLVED 13 CONTACTS

| 3

SOURCES AND TRANSFER OF INFORMATION There is not the one and only „Roadmap“! Companies develop their individual approaches both with respect to source of information as well as to content represented in the Roadmap.

There are also differences in the depth of the link to project management.

79,7%

QUESTIONS OF THE STUDY (from left to right)

WHAT ARE THE FIVE MOST

MARKET ANALYSES

IMPORTANT EXTERNAL SOURCES

ROADMAPPING CONTENT (n=79, multiple responses) 78,3%

46,4%

CUSTOMERS

COMPETITORS

39,1%

RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS AND UNIVERSITIES

39,1%

LEGISLATION

PRODUCTS

79,7%

TECHNOLOGIES

68,4%

PROJECTS

57,0%

STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES AND GOALS

44,3%

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

38,0%

TRENDS

35,4%

PROCESSES

OPERATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION (n=77)

WHAT CONTENT IS DISPLAYED IN ROADMAPS IN YOUR BUSINESS ?

35,4%

ADOPTED OR

30,4%

APPROVED MEASURES

WHAT TIMELINE IS COVERED BY

COMPONENTS MARKETS

27,8%

SKILLS

24,1%

OTHER

5,1%

23,2% SUPPLIERS 20,3% EXTERNAL ROADMAPS

0%

10%

18,2% 20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

BUDGETED

PLANNING TIMELINE (n=69)

MEASURES

< 5 YEARS

5 – 10 YEARS

> 10 YEARS

59,4%

37,7%

2,9%

8,7% MEDIA 11,6% OTHER

(n=69, multiple responses)

n generally corresponds to 100 percent

ROADMAPS IN YOUR COMPANY ?

FROM WHICH DEGREE OF MATURITY ON DO YOU PLACE AN OBJECT

80%

18,8% ASSOCIATIONS

11,6% CONSULTING COMPANIES

MAPS IN YOUR COMPANY ?

32,5%

30,4% APPLYING USERS

14,5% JOURNALS

IN ORDER TO UPDATE THE ROAD-

ONTO THE ROADMAP ?

| 4

SOURCES OF INFORMATION : EVOLUTION

On average, companies rely on little more than 4 categories of information source. The little use of external roadmaps seems surprising.

MARKET ANALYSIS

MARKET ANALYSIS

82,6%

80,0%

8,7% OTHER

10,0% OTHER

78,3%

4,3% MEDIA

8,7% JOURNALS

13,0% SUPPLIERS

CUSTOMERS

30,9%

20,0% MEDIA

ADOPTED OR APPROVED MEASURES

20,0% JOURNALS 43,5% LEGISLATION

17,4% CONSULTING COMPANIES

70,0%

10,0% LEGISLATION

CUSTOMERS

17,3% BUDGETED MEASURES

50,0% RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS AND UNIVERSITIES

20,0% CONSULTING COMPANIES

39,1% COMPETITORS

17,4% EXTERNAL ROADMAPS

21,7% APPLYING USERS

40,0% COMPETITORS

30,0% ASSOCIATIONS

30,0% EXTERNAL ROADMAPS 34,8% RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS AND UNIVERSITIES 26,1% ASSOCIATIONS

(n=23, multiple responses)

40,0% SUPPLIERS 40,0% APPLYING USER

(n=10, multiple responses)

| 5

METHODOLOGICAL CONNECTION

The roadmap is associated with a variety of analytical methods, such as the technology radar and portfolios. However, the relatively high level of creativity methods is striking.

TECHNOLOGY RADAR

ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROADMAP.

COMPANIES THAT DISPLAY

50,0%

BUDGETED MEASURES ARE

43,3%

10,0% OTHER

INTEGRATING THE ROADMAP

PORTFOLIOS

EVEN MORE INTENSE: Ã&#x2DC; 3.7 CONNECTIONS.

3,3% DELPHI STUDIES

8,3% REGRESSION ANALYSIS

10,0% MATURITY MODELS

ON AVERAGE, 3.1 METHODS ARE

TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP

41,7%

40,0%

13,3% TECHNOLOGY ATLAS / -MAP

20,0% QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT / HOUSE OF QUALITY

33,3% SCENARIO ANALYSIS

35,0%

CREATIVITY METHODS

STRATEGY MAPS

BALANCED SCORECARD

(n=60, multiple responses)

| 6

METHODOLOGICAL CONNECTION : EVOLUTION With increasing level of knowledge methods are being used more often. Furthermore, the spread of used methods rises.

BALANCED SCORECARD

CREATIVITY METHODS

35,7% 7,1% OTHER

28,6%

TECHNOLOGY RADAR

0% DELPHI STUDIES

TECHNOLOGY

0% REGRESSION ANALYSIS

25,0%

ROADMAP 0% MATURITY MODELS

Roadmapping has been used for 2-5 years and is occasionally established in processes within the company.

23,1% OTHER

61,5% 53,8%

PORTFOLIOS

15,4% DELPHI STUDIES 23,1% MATURITY MODELS

STRATEGY MAPS

TECHNOLOGY

53,8%

ROADMAP 30,8% TECHNOLOGY ATLAS / -MAP

LOW

SCENARIO ANALYSIS

HIGH KNOWLEDGE

KNOWLEDGE 7,1% BALANCED SCORECARD

7,1% TECHNOLOGY ATLAS / -MAP 10,7% SCENARIO ANALYSIS

46,2%

38,5% REGRESSION ANALYSIS

TECHNOLOGY RADAR

14,3% QFD/HOQ

(n=28, multiple responses)

53,8%

38,5% CREATIVITY METHODS

17,9% PORTFOLIOS

48,3%

TECHNOLOGY RADAR

38,5% QFD/HOQ

3,4% OTHER

41,4%

PORTFOLIOS

(n=13, multiple responses)

0% DELPHI STUDIES 0% REGRESSION ANALYSIS

TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP

0% TECHNOLOGY ATLAS / -MAP

34,5%

SCENARIO ANALYSIS

MEDIUM KNOWLEDGE

Roadmapping is used in the company for less than 2 years and mainly sporadically.

10,3% QFD/HOQ

34,5%

10,3% MATURITY MODELS

31,0%

STRATEGY MAPS

31,0%

STRATEGY MAPS

BALANCED SCORECARD

CREATIVITY METHODS

(n=29, multiple responses)

Roadmapping is used for over 5 years and is firmly established in the company.

| 7

APPLICATION AND RESPONSIBLE AREAS Practical roadmaps cover a wide range of different applications. One has to point out the low level of integration of production planning, which will become more important in the future by trends such as Industry 4.0 and an increasing digitization.

APPLICATIONS

RESPONSIBLE AREAS

(n=81, multiple responses)

(n=73, multiple responses)

STRATEGIC PLANNING

77,8%

TECHNOLOGY PLANNING

66,7%

MANAGEMENT

PRODUCTION PLANNING

24,7%

TREND MONITORING

24,7%

MARKET OBSERVATION

19,8%

ND DEV

EN

10

30

40

50

60

70

80

47,9% R ES

11,0%

SALE S

G ETI N

ARK 3% M

23,

65

20

EARCH A

EM AG AN TM UC OD PR

0

,8%

6,2%

OTHER

AND ADVANCE DEVE LOPMENT

55,6%

37,0% TECHNOLOGY

PRODUCT & SERVICES PLANNING

T

61,7%

ELOPME NT

53,4% R&D PLANNING

CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

47,9%

TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

53,4%

9,6% OTHER SPECIALIST FUNCTIONS

CROSS-SECTIONAL FUNCTIONS

| 8

FREQUENCY OF UPDATE Companies that already represent budgeted measures in the roadmap, their roadmap is more often updated continuously.

DEFINED PROCESSES (n=54, multiple responses)

UPDATING THE OVERALL DISPLAY 35 30 25 20 15

UPDATE 83,3%

10

32,4%

5

28,2%

ADOPTED OR APPROVED MEASURES

35

(n=25)

30

INSERT NEW BUILDINGS 59,3%

REMOVE OBSOLETE OBJECTS 40,7%

25,4%

12,7%

0

40 COMMUNICATION 63,0%

18,3%

40 35

25

20

20

15

15

10

10

0

36,0%

40,0%

24,0%

20,0%

4,0%

(n=14)

30

25

5

BUDGETED MEASURES

4,0%

5 0

21,4%

21,4%

14,3%

35,7%

OTHER3,7% ANNUAL

SEMI-ANNUAL

QUARTERLY

CONTINUOUS

OTHERS

NO INDICATION

7,1%

21,4%

| 9

PITFALLS What is to be avoided in the implementation, consolidation, updating and visualization?

CHALLENGES

"too high academic approach" "lack of planning down to the details" "data interruption" "entrust persons without appropriate ... expertise with such tasks"

"Disproportionate assumptions that lead to non-comparable content/values."

"overwhelm with the ... speed of change"

"parallel data sources and communication channels"

EMPLOYEES

"complex first creation" "parallel data sources and communication channels" "prefabricated processes and tools"

CREATING A HOLISTIC UNDERSTANDING ACROSS ENTERPRISE

"waiting for the perfect tool"

FUNCTIONS, DEPARTMENTS AND

"implement roadmapping detached from existing informal procedures"

EVENTS.

CONSTRUCTION OF SYSTEMATIC

PROCESSES

PROCESSES IN ORDER TO ESTAB-

"introducing Roadmapping without the support of top management"

POLICY & STRATEGY

RM IMPLEMENTATION RM CARE

RESOURCES & PARTNERS

"inconsistency, too many different software systems" "roadmaps in Excel and PowerPoint lead to exponential expense when objects are being shifted"

IMPLEMENTATION & PRODUCT MANAGEMENT

"do not publicize and use only within a small group of people"

RESULTS

"lack of personal communication at the relevant levels"

MANAGEMENT

INPUT

"Distinguishing between a roadmap as a planning and working document and the presentation as a presentation with only higher level information towards management."

"Not everybody, who the decision is relevant to, knows the underlying concept."

"Too high level of detail of the projects on the Roadmap. The depth of detail and the specification should only point out key requirements. "

"[lack of] flexibility to incorporate future requirements" "frequency of adapting the roadmap ... too low" "define no 'owner' of the roadmap - define roadmapping not as a process"

LISH ROADMAPS AS A GUIDELINE FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING.

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES FOR CONSTRUCTION, CARE AND CONTINUOUS UPDATING OF ROADMAPS.

| 10

CHALLENGES What are the main future challenges for the use of roadmaps?

RECOMMENDATIONS "focusing and not collection of ideas without value" "agility and linking of different control periods"

"obtaining the necessary inputs“

"holistic approach between product, solution and service"

"product and technology portfolio"

"broadening the horizon up to 5-10 years"

"Within the forecast of trends in a highly volatile and interacting system of systems of Society, Economy, Technology and Environment."

"technology / product / market"

"competency planning"

"production planning"

"managing complexity"

EMPLOYEES

"internationalisation"

CONSISTENCY OF THE ROADMAP ACROSS PLANNING AND BUSINESS LEVELS AND ALONG THE VALUE CHAIN.

MIXED CENTRAL DECENTRALISED

PROCESSES

ORGANIZATIONAL FORM WITH

"To convince all those involved along the entire value of the use of platforms." "cultural willingness to promote or permit the necessary transparency"

POLICY & STRATEGY

RM IMPLEMENTATION

RESULTS

"The acceptance of the roadmap within management. The achieved results should be taken seriously and need to be implemented."

MANAGEMENT

INPUT

"increase resilience of roadmaps against the daily business"

CENTRAL COORDINATION AND

"highlight the added value to the organization"

DECENTRALISED THEMATIC

"apply roadmap as guidance path of strategic development"

RM CARE

RESOURCES & PARTNERS

IMPLEMENTATION & PRODUCT MANAGEMENT

"Establish internal drivers that promote this issue."

"know-how transfer within the company“

"provide capacity and flexibility"

"Knowledge of the methodology and willingness to implement the decisions on the basis of roadmaps consistently."

"display in the form of an IT tool with a central database" "resources to create and maintain"

"implementation, updating, project definition, communication"

RESPONSIBILITY.

CONSISTENT APPROACH FOR INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS INTEGRATION OF EMPLOYEES OF DIFFERENT AREAS.

"sustainability of care and updating" "reducing complexity" "define an 'owner' of the roadmap; define roadmapping as a process"

| 11

SOFTWARE SUPPORT Companies that use special software for the consolidation, maintenance and visualization of roadmaps, are characterized by higher intensity of methods and use roadmapping more intense as a working tool.

SOFTWARE SUPPORT

(n=68, multiple responses)

CRITERIA

Knowledge (n1=81, n2=28) low medium high no indication

79,4% MS EXCEL

5,9%

SOCIAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS

73,5% MS POWERPOINT

5,9%

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SW

27,9% (MULTI) PROJEKTMANAGEMENT SW

4,4%

OTHER

14,7% ROAD MAPPING SW

ALL COMPANIES

COMPANIES WITH SOFWARE SUPPORT *

34,1% 35,4% 15,9% 14,6%

32,1% 42,9% 25,0% 0%

Ø Number of used sources of information (n1=69, n2=28)

Ø 4,2

Ø 4,9

Ø Number of connected methods (n1=690, n2=26)

Ø 3,1

(EXCEPT EXCEL, POWERPOINT): • AHA LABS: AHA! • ITONICS: Roadmapping-Engine • MICROSOFT: Project Server • ONEPOINT PROJECTS: Onepoint Projects • PLANVIEW: Planview Enterprise

Ø 3,8

Plattform • ROELTO VISUALISE &

Planning horizon (n1=69, n2=27) < 5 Years 5 – 10 Years > 10 Years

59,4% 37,7% 2,9%

Operational implementation (n1=77, n2=27) adopted or approved measures budgeted measures

30,9% 17,3%

Update (n1=71, n2=28) annual semi-annual quarterly continuously other

SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS

48,2% 44,4% 7,4%

ACCELERATE: Roelto • SAP: PPM Portfolio & Project Management

37,0%

• SCIFORMA: Projekt- & Portfolio-

14,8%

management Software • SOPHEON: Accolade Roadmapping

32,4% 28,2% 18,3% 25,4% 12,7%

21,4% 32,1% 25,0% 35,7% 10,7% * Without MS Office

• XWS CROSS WIDE SERVICE: IntraPRO Innovation Roadmapping

| 12

COMPANIES INVOLVED How can the participants and their companies be characterized?

POSITION OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE COMPANY 30

MECHANICAL AND PLANT ENGINEERING

28,4%

HIGH KNOWLEDGE REGARDING

SUPPLIER

17,3%

ROADMAPPING (N = 70).

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

11,1%

20 15 10 5 0 25,9% TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT 4,9% BUSINESS UNIT MANAGEMENT

16,0% OTHER

8,6% MANAGEMENT

3,7% PRODUCT MANAGEMENT

25,9% NO INDICATION

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

INVOLVED HAVE A MEDIUM TO

SECTORS

25

14,8% HEAD R&D

60% OF THE COMPANIES

ICT

4,9%

SERVICES

2,5%

CONSUMER GOODS

2,5%

CONFIRM FINDINGS OF PREVIOUS

PROCESS TECHNOLOGY

1,2% 11,1%

STUDIES THAT ROADMAPPING

OTHER

THE PARTICIPATION SEEMS TO

STILL IS NOT USED IN SMALL AND

21,0%

NO INDICATION 0

5

10

15

20

SALES IN MILLION EURO 40,7% >= 2000 17,3% 500 – 1999 7,4% 250 – 499

55,6% >= 50

8,6% 50 – 249

11,1% 10 – 49

2,5% 10 – 49

3,7% 2 – 9

2,5% < 10

2,5% < 2

21,0% NO INDICATION

27,2% NO INDICATION

(n=81, multiple responses)

25

30

MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES.

TIM CONSULTING

FRAUNHOFER IAO

Prof. Dr. Thomas Abele

Dr. Sven Schimpf

Hohnerstraße 25 | 70469 Stuttgart Germany

Nobelstraße 12 | 70569 Stuttgart Germany

Tel + 49 (0) 711 3151 5661

Tel + 49 (0) 711 970-01

thomas.abele@tim-consulting.eu

Sven.Schimpf@iao.fraunhofer.de

tim-consulting.eu

rdm.iao.fraunhofer.de

Date: 22. Januar 2016 Layout: www.daniellawinkler.de