26th International Association for Management of Technology Conference - IAMOT 2017

Roadmapping frameworks are said to provide a common reference point for linking strategy and innovation (S&I) tools. It has been argued that there is no incompatibility between these tools and roadmapping. Therefore, combining the development of roadmaps with S&I tools would support an integrated approach to S&I processes. However, it is not clear how diverse S&I tools can be meaningfully classified into basic types that are fundamentally different in the way they relate to roadmapping. Moreover, discussions on how these tools may be sequenced in an integrated approach are seemingly absent in literature. Thus, this paper proposes taxonomies and sequences for combining S&I tools with roadmapping. In order to achieve this goal, this essay explores, through a thought experiment, potentially useful variations on how S&I tools could be grouped and arranged over time, based on their main characteristics pointed by the literature. Both the multi-layered time-based general structure of roadmaps and the main S&I processes related to roadmapping are characterized in order to derive the criteria on which proposals are based. The tools’ level of analysis and whether or not temporality and information of multiple layers are explicitly taken into account exemplify the types of criteria that are adopted in this paper. Results highlight the usefulness of identifying possible patterns in the combination of S&I tools and roadmapping for creating relevant guidelines for practitioners. Four main types of tools are proposed based on their contribution to fill the roadmap structure with relevant content: (i) intra-layer and current situation; (ii) intra-layer and medium/long-term vision; (iii) inter-layer and current situation; and (iv) inter-layer and medium/long-term vision. Using a corresponding two-by-two matrix (layers x time horizon), well-known examples of each kind of tool are given and their classification is explained. Moreover, using this taxonomy and a model of a typical S&I management system, a comprehensive four-step sequence of tool application is suggested. It is argued how more than ten different tools could be used over time in order to build a robust S&I planning system, centered on the roadmap structure. Each of the four steps is related to a macro S&I process (strategic, portfolio or project management) and its contribution is graphically illustrated using the roadmap architecture. Emphasis is given to the possibilities of synergistic effects of the parallel combined application of tools inside each step. Future work is encouraged to test, in real-world practice, the usefulness of this taxonomy and sequence. Indeed, we expect that new proposals to distinguish S&I tools in ways that are relevant to roadmapping-guided management should be inspired by the suggestions made in this paper. After all, although many interesting work has been done on S&I tools and roadmapping separately, it is still poorly discussed how this toolbox could be usefully applied in practice in order to help building a robust S&I management system. We hope this paper will trigger this much needed integrative discussion in the management of technology field, by extending traditional issues of mixed-methods research – such as taxonomy and sequence – to the technology management tools’ debate.