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