You are on page 1of 13

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Methodology for the of building process integration of Business Model

Canvas and Technological Roadmap
Miguel Angel Toro-Jarrn, Idalia Estefania Ponce-Jaramillo, David Gemes-Castorena
Center for Quality and Manufacturing, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, Monterrey, NL, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The importance of linking efciently the outputs of R&D processes with the business world has become evident.
Received 24 May 2015 Researchers and practitioners have developed tools to help build business from a starting point (business idea/
Received in revised form 13 January 2016 product concept) to the description of elements that make the business possible. The Business Model Canvas
Accepted 14 January 2016
identies the essential parts of a business; it's applicability and simplicity has given it greater acceptance and dis-
Available online 1 February 2016
semination. Furthermore, the Technology Roadmap is presented as a valuable tool to visualize the relationships
over time of the market, technology and product strategies; TRMs allow decision makers to identify gaps be-
Methodology tween the current and the future business strategy.
Integration BMC and TRMs have been used independently of each other. This work has the objective to present a methodol-
Business Model Canvas ogy of the building process integration of these two tools, to provide a business model and a technology roadmap
Technology Roadmap for the business idea or new product concept that are aligned to the current and future business needs. Then, it is
explained and described in a practical manner by a case of study. One of the benets of using this methodology is
that a business constructs a BMC and TRM with two different approaches giving the process the perspective of
future analysis and also visualizing elements for the current business. It was found that the building integration
process allows constructing a robust business strategy proposal in a structured mode taking into account the ben-
ets of each tool and reducing the disadvantages.
2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to Rohrbeck and Schwarz (2013), rms suffer blindness caused by fo-
cusing mostly on the inside of the company and reinforcing practices
In a world where the changes occur so fast, a look into the future is that made the company successful in the past thus, it becomes evident
not only an additional tool for strategic planning but an essential exer- that rms need to dedicate efforts to look outside the company and to
cise for every company. Rohrbeck and Schwarz (2013) appointed that be aware of the coming changes.
the early acknowledge and visionary anticipation of the technological For this purpose, academics and practitioners have presented differ-
potential play a key role in a globalized world which is characterized ent alternatives to explore the future systematically. For example, Phaal,
by the improvement of competitiveness. They also observed that ignor- Farrukh and Probert (2004b) states that in order that technology man-
ing changes in business environment often results in losing opportuni- agement benets a business it is required effective process and systems
ties or failing in responding threats. For Makridakis (Godet, 2010) the that guarantee that the existing and potential technological resources
role of visioning the future is to provide managers and government pol- are aligned with its needs now and in the future.
icy maker's different ways to comprehend the future and help them On the other hand, if a rm has hints of trends that could drive future
have a total understanding of possible implications of social and techno- customer's behavior, and also technology development, the next stage
logical changes. is to envisioning the business that adapts better to those trends by
The technology development and market demands accelerate using new technologies advantages. However, it is not easy to structure
changes in the world. In literature is found frequently that technology a business for the present scenario and it is more complicated to con-
innovation is a key successful factor for performance improvement struct for a future scenario.
and survival of the enterprise, besides it is a determinant factor for sus- The objective of this study is to facilitate to managers, policy makers
tainable economic development of nations and quality life improve- and practitioners the creation of a business model for both current and
ment of their people (Keupp, Palmi, & Gassmann, 2012). According future scenario. In order to achieve this objective Technology Roadmap
(TRM) and Business Model Canvas (BMC) are developed in a structured
Corresponding author.
manner at the same time to construct a robust business strategy propos-
E-mail addresses:,, al taking into account the pros and reducing the cons of each strategic
(D. Gemes-Castorena). tool.
0040-1625/ 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
214 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225

2. Framework model. Target customers, value propositions, supply method, and

prot model according to scenarios are conrmed. This stage bene-
The business strategy involves all the plans needed to create and de- ts to discover bottle necks through milestone gaps between layers
liver value to the customer. It denes: what segments the rm will at- discover, also investment timing are investigated and veried and,
tend; the means to deliver value to the segments identied; the business strategy is evaluated.
manufacturing strategy; R&D strategy and the way the rm is presented
to the public (Chungyalpa & Bora, 2015). Abe, Ashiki, Suzuki, Jinno and Sakuma (2009) analyzed BM and SRM
There are a number of tools to help organizations to manage resources and summarized pros and cons (see Table 1).
more effectively in order to create value and explore the future, for exam- 4. de Reuver, Bouwman and Haaker (2013) developed a study on core
ple Pillkahn (2008) uses these tools for strategy development. According concepts from business model and technology roadmapping. They
to Ringland (2010), these tools are valuable not only for the outputs gen- concluded that business model roadmap obtains how operational
erated at the end of the process but for the interaction between the team actions and business model impacts are consistent, it means that if
members because they improve organizational knowledge. an organization has to choose between different business models,
In this section, rst previous integration works will be described, and business model roadmapping helps to identify overlapping routes,
secondly concepts that help forming the methodology of building the route dependencies and points of return.
integration process will be dened.
2.2. Business Model Canvas (BMC)
2.1. Previous BMTRM integration works
Zott and Amit (2010) dene a business model as the content, struc-
The use of BM and TRM certainly has many advantages, but a strate- ture, and governance of transactions designed so as to create value
gic business link is missing if it is used independently. Strategic manage- through the exploitation of business opportunities. Chesbrough
ment practitioners and researchers have combined BM and TRM to (2010) mentions that some of business model functions are: to identify
achieve a more robust strategy, the combination of these tools generates market segment, to specify revenue generation mechanism, to dene
a new and more powerful tool for exploring the current and the future the structure of the value chain, to describe rm's positions within
business and their parts (Pillkahn, 2008). Following, three studies that value network and to formulate a competitive strategy that gain and
combined these tools will be analyzed. hold advantage over competitors.
1. Five Porter's forces: Many authors (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010; According to Osterwalder and Pigneur (2009) a business model is
Abe, Ashiki, Suzuki, Jinno, & Sakuma, 2009; Abe, Shinokura, Suzuki, representation of how an organization creates, delivers and captures
Kubo, & Sakuma, 2006) have used the ve Porter's forces in order value from a product or service. BMC is a graphical approach that de-
to integrate BM and TRM. According to Porter (2008), understand- scribes nine elements needed to dene a business model (see Fig. 1).
ing the competitive forces, and their underlying causes, reveals the An abridged description of each element of the business model is
roots of an industry's current protability while providing a frame- shown in Table 2.
work for anticipating and inuencing competition (and protability)
over time. For helping construct the rm political strategy, studies 2.3. Technology Roadmap (TRM)
based on the Porter's forces have been developed (Vining, Shapiro,
& Borges, 2005), and for helping to apply the ve forces analysis, Phaal et al. (2004a) dene technology roadmap as a exible tech-
Dobbs (2014) presents ve templates to quantied the threats levels. nique used to support strategic and log-term planning, providing a
2. Abe, Shinokura, Suzuki, Kubo, and Sakuma (2006) found common structured relationships between evolving and developing markets,
parts in the generation of BM and TRM in a study named Smart-In- products and technology over the time. The TRM process addresses
novation Planning Method. The main purpose of the study was to the identication, selection, acquisition, development, exploitation
use the output of BM as input for strategic roadmapping (SRM). and protection of technologies (product, process and infrastructural)
The integrated these two tools by introducing further steps at the be- needed to achieve, maintain and grow a market position and busi-
ginning and in the end of the process to generate BM and TRM in one ness performance in accordance with the company's objectives.
single procedure. The methodology consists in 5 steps: 1) combina- The TRM aims to support the start-up of company-specic TRM pro-
tion of business ideas and database, 2a) analysis of value chain, mac- cesses as: 1) to establish key linkages between technology resources
roscopic environment, PEST and business environment, 2b) scenario and business drivers; 2) to identify important gaps in market, product
forecasting, 3a) scenario planning, 3b) do explorative roadmapping and technology intelligence; 3) to develop a rst-cut technology
using the reference scenarios, 4a) integration of result of step 3b roadmap; 4) to support technology strategy and 5) to plan initiatives in
and SRM, 4b) conrmation of target customer, product, supply meth- the rm to support communication between technical and commercial
od and prot model; and 5) decision making based on the valuation functions.
of factors. Phaal, Farrukh, and Probert (2004b) appoint that it is important
3. Abe, Ashiki, Suzuki, Jinno and Sakuma (2009) reported a new busi- that the technology strategy should not be developed independently
ness strategic planning method for the integration of BM and strate- from the business strategy, instead technological resources should
gic roadmapping (SRM) named Innovation Support Technology. be considered as an integral part of business plan. A successful TRM
The methodology is applied using three stages: helps to establish a balance between market pull and technology
push (see Fig. 2).
a) Product concept and business idea based on R&D outputs are de- According to Phaal et al. (2004a), the following factors contribute to
scribed. Market and customers are pictured and determined based a successfully and sustainable roadmapping initiative:
on this product concept and this business idea. The aim of this
stage is to generate the technological scenario. - Clear business need, tangible benets and appropriate timing for
b) Planning of the business scenario with two objectives: To design and each activity.
to obtain the business target of the company in the future, and - Good architecture that reects the structure of the organization and
roadmapping the product function and the enabling technology to the issue at hand.
achieve the business target in the future. - Strong commitment and ownership from senior management and a
c) Contents of company technology roadmapping and discoveries supporter in order to drive the process forward, perhaps supported
through these roadmapping workshops are reected to the business by external independent facilitation.
M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225 215

Table 1
Pros and cons of BM and SRM (Hitoshi Abe et al., 2009).

Pros Cons

Business model
1. To know how to create company value from R&D outputs and provide an operation model 1. Difcult to nd out market trends and opportunities
2. Modeling tool to create business concept from business idea 2. Difcult to make a decision of invest timing
3. Help the modeling of the competitive strategy technology. How? What? And to whom? 3. Difcult to judge the choice of an alternative technology
4. Provide the service/product and how to win competition 4. Difcult to know when? And what? technology should be developed

Strategic roadmap
1. Roadmaps consist of layer, such as market, business, products, technology and resources.
1. Difcult to express a business attractiveness of R&D outputs
They are systematically expressed on a time-axis of R&D outputs
2. It can be utilized as a strategy planning tool, which supports, helps to explore opportunities,
2. Difcult to express a business system or operation model
permits the choice of alternative technologies, and associates the elements between layers
3. Knowledge creation for a better action: discovery of gaps, bottlenecks, technological defections, 3. It takes more time to create and maintain roadmap under satisfying
promotion of development and estimate the required resources comprehensiveness
4. Difcult to evaluate business value

- Effective process manager who collects relevant information by get- Market level describes current and future customer needs along with
ting multifunctional/multidisciplinary people with the expertise re- competitive strategies, regulatory environment, complementary prod-
quired to develop a wellfounded and creditable roadmap. uct evolution, substitute products, disruptive innovations, and other
- Effective communication that ensures that the roadmap inuences factors. Strategic goals and market targets are often stated as milestones
decision making. or target dates for certain events; Product level documents performance
- Appropriate culture for supporting collaboration and sharing in the and product features' evolution, new-to-the-company products (in-
business, combined with a desired to develop and implement busi- cluding services) and new-to-the-world products, and; Technology
ness process. level describes expected R&D products, their availability dates, the driv-
ing factors for the R&D, and related information.
In this study the methodology that will be used to build a technology
roadmap is: a three level roadmap; using four-workshop T-plan meth-
odology, and nishing with linking grids. These tools are used because 2.3.2. Methods to construct a roadmap
in practice they have proved to be practical and efcient in order to con- Studies have dened different methods to construct a roadmap, they
struct a roadmap that ts to business prole and prospects future sce- differ on how the participants are organized. The three approaches con-
narios. Each tool and methodology is deeply described in the next sidered are:
- Central Process, where the enterprise builds the roadmap using in-
2.3.1. Types and levels of roadmaps formation provided by the business unit owners.
According to Phaal et al. (2004b) identify eight types of graphical - Workshop Approach, where the roadmaps are built in collaborative
roadmaps according to the specic needs each one is a useful and recur- sessions with the business-unit content owners, facilitated by the
sive tool for strategic management. For study purpose, it was chosen enterprise team.
multiple layers type, which is the most common format for a TRM for - Distributed Approach, where roadmaps are built by the individual
the analysis of the current and future situations related to three main business-unit and functional content owners in a manner that en-
levels dened by Cosner et al. (2007): market, product and resources ables subsequent integration based on guidelines provided by the
(see Fig. 3). enterprise team.

Fig. 1. Representation of a Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009).

216 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225

Table 2
Elements to dene Business Model (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009).

Element Description

Customer segment (CS) The organization serves one or several customer segments which are separated in order to satisfy their needs.
Value propositions (VP) Identication of how the rm manages to solve customer's problems and how to satisfy customer's needs. It is the bundle of products and
services that creates value for a specic customer segment.
Channels (CH) Interface between company and customer. Value propositions are delivered to customers through communication, distribution and sales channels.
Customer relationships (CR) Relationships established and maintain in each customer segment, conferring to customer segment characteristics.
Revenue streams (RS) Description of how economic revenue is generated as a result of bringing value to customer.
Key resources (KR) Resources required making and delivering value proposition, they can be physical, nancial, intellectual or human.
Key activities Activities that the company must do to make its value proposition and working model.
Key partnerships (KP) Description of suppliers and partners network that helps the company optimize their business model, reduce risk and /or acquire resources.
Cost structure (CS) Report of all operation costs of a business model, they are calculated summarizing key resources, key activities and key partnerships.

The workshop approach will be used in this study because the meth- with product features and technology solution all in one single chart,
od promotes the team interaction, improve communication and owner- linking grid is performed to relate the levels in the TRM (See Fig. 5).
ship of plans within the building process. (Cosner et al., 2007; de
Reuver, Bouwman, & Haaker, 2013). 3. Methodology

In the literature there are many tools successfully applied for strate-
2.3.3. The T-plan gy, innovation and business modeling and the question comes: would it
The T-plan is a guide developed by Phaal, Farrukh, and Probert be possible to join these tools BM and TRM to achieve the same out-
(2004b), to create a TRM in an organization it consists in the application puts but with a different and new perspective? The aim of this paper is
of four workshops; one for each level of the TRM and one more to link to present the result of a building process integration study of this two
them all in a time chart (see Fig. 4). So as to relate the levels and direct broadly applied management tools. The research approach is based in
the efforts of the company to the market pull, the T-plan uses the linking three main parts:
grid tool (dened in the next section), although the technology push is
also considered because its aim is to generate new technology solutions. - Literature review for each strategic tool, (BMC and TRM) and for pre-
vious studies. The aim of this part is to have a clearer idea of the key
concepts and to establish the state of art for the integration tools,
2.3.4. Linking grids which were discussed already.
Given that, the constitutive parts of a TRM are the layers, it is recom- - Create a methodology that integrate both (TRM linking process and
mended to develop their relation from the beginning. Phaal, Farrukh BMC integration process) in one single building process integration,
and Probert (2003) noted that the market business drivers and product starting with a BIPC and pursuing the structured BMC for each time
feature concepts together dene a simple grid that can be used to inves- step of the TRM.
tigate the relationships between features and drivers. The product fea- - Illustration of a case of study in order to validate the methodology
ture concepts are grouped and their impact ranked for each market presented in the previous part.
and business driver, and alternative product strategies considered (in
response to combinations of market and business drivers). According One of the most important contributions that this work pursues is to
to Phaal, Farrukh and Probert (2006) for each market driver could be help envisioning future BM's in the mid and long term but taking into
one or several product features, and for each product feature could consideration market trends and technology changes that the TRM pro-
have one or several technology solutions. The TRM allows the combina- vides, it means, to obtain two products that are strategically aligned at
tion of as many business and market drivers as possible and the link the same time, and use both tool benets to accomplish business

Fig. 2. Generalized technology roadmap architecture (Phaal, Farrukh, & Probert, 2004b).
M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225 217

Fig. 3. A multilayer TRM for market, product and technology analysis (Phaal, Farrukh, &
Probert, 2004b).

strategic plan. To accomplish this objective, the case of study uses the
methodology described in this document to test how BM gives TRM
Fig. 5. Schematic of a linking grid analysis (Phaal R., Farrukh, Mitchell, & Probert, 2003).
the elements to materialize the strategic vision and how TRM gives
BM the perspective of the future and their changes.
The integration of the BMC and TRM is not only the integration of facilitate the analysis of each stage, they are divided into topics and
space and time while developing the outputs for each steps, but an more specics issues. During discussion the team will identify which
amalgamation of the ideas generated. The BMC and TRM are normally issue would be used for construct the TRM and which for creating
presented in separated graphical representations, however, one can the BM. Some of the issues are presented using questions. These ques-
provide feedback to the other, and, if made at the same time, they are tions are answered by the team members using research and any infor-
more valuable for managers, not only at the end of the process, but dur- mation available. (For detailed information about the questions see
ing the process, because the team debates with two different ap- Appendix 1).
proaches giving the process the perspective of future analysis and also At the end of phases 2, 3 and 4 is suggested to generate the business
visualizing elements for the current business. strategy elements; the team will have important information to dene
The main inputs for the whole process are the business idea and/or all aspects of the company strategy. It is not the purpose of this study
the product concept. BI and PC are dened during the preparatory to develop the strategy itself but certainly the debate generated, the
phase, in order to accomplish that, this study assumes that the organiza- ideas and the cognitive process assemble the perfect scenario to dene
tion already has some ideas for the new product, and with it, the task or check the rm strategy.
will be to develop the business model and best product development Next, we describe each phase in detail. For each one, it is established
plan for the business. the purpose, inputs, expected outputs, specic issues and references for
Therefore, the outputs of the process are two, the BMC and the TRM. further research.
The methodology is structured by one preparatory stage at the be-
ginning of the process for establishes goals and boundaries and ve dif- 3.1. Phase 0: Preparatory phase
ferent stages (See Fig. 6). The main goal is to identify the business blocks
to construct the BM and the levels of (1) market, (2) product and In the Preparatory phase (see Fig. 7) only few members of the team
(3) technologies of TRM in one single process across the ve stages. participate, especially business idea owner and/or top business man-
This is possible given that the debate created among the team members agers. This phase is for dening the goals pursued (creating a new busi-
can be addressed by the need to dene specic outputs in the process, ness, reinforcing an existing unit, growing the market share, etc.) It is
so that they are focused on how to build product value and bring it to important to dene the most important issues for the new product/
the customer. This analysis is extrapolated to the future and the changes business as well as having a picture of how it may look like. In this
that the business would face in order to satisfy the trends that the mar- phase is dened the time frame for the analysis, meaning what period
ket follows through the time. of time correspond to short, medium and long term.
The methodology is based on the workshop approach; every phase The managers also need to determine (a) where does the rm want to
of the methodology corresponds to a suggested one day four-hour go? (b) Where are they now? And (c) how can they get there? (2003).
workshop, except for the preparatory-stage (which can be performed This helps to dene the horizon frame time. The expertise and knowledge
by the business idea owner and the champion himself/herself). To of different team members is critical for success especially from top man-
agement members so as to create legitimacy (Osterwalder & Pigneur,
2010), so in this phase the team members are selected according to
their qualications and backgrounds.

3.2. Phase 1: Value proposition identication

This phase gathers useful information to dene value proposition of

BM (see Fig. 8). The team identies objectives to be pursued in the po-
tential market (satisfy, bring to, improve or create), and they test the
BIPC using the story telling technique. According to Osterwalder and
Pigneur (2010) the goal of telling a story is to introduce a new business
model in an engaging, tangible way. Choosing the right ideas for a busi-
ness starting is crucial, and giving them a pitch of reality before the im-
plementation by telling the audience how it may work, might be very
Fig. 4. T- plan: standard process (Phaal et al., 2004a). useful. This technique helps to identify the potential customers
218 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225

Fig. 6. Building Process Integration BMC TRM.

segments, the way the rm creates value, and the way to deliver it to intellectual property and general regulations policy. It is also an ex-
customers. ploration of how the government policy is affecting the customer
Afterwards, the team uses the Kill/thrill session for testing prelimi- protection legislation, product disclosure requirements, advertising
nary ideas. Kill/thrill sessions advice about the risk of overestimate the regulation, product testing for safety and health controls, and price
initial ideas and recommend mitigate this risk by doing kill/thrill ses- controls (Vining, Shapiro, & Borges, 2005).
sions. The aim of these sessions is to brainstorming the reason why - Macroeconomic forces: The aim is to analyze the forces that guide
the idea won't work (kill) and why the idea would work (thrill). the market from the macroeconomic point of view. This will help
These sessions are necessary to avoid the risk of overestimation of ini- to identify market facts such as: general market sentiments, employ-
tial rough ideas. ment rate, how easy is to obtain funding, what kind of funding is
At this point there is available a rough idea of potential segments and available, and how costly is the funding.
is possible to determine their main characteristics (e.g. ethnographic, - Key trends: The team identies the societal trends that shift cultural
gender, etc.); the team can start investigating how the customer feels values that would affect business model and the trends that might
about the BIPC using the empathy map which aims to have an in- inuence buyer behavior.
sight to the customer feelings, preferences and thinking and try to - Market forces: After this analysis the rm will be aware of the crucial
keep into the process the pain avoided and the gain provided by issues affecting customer landscape, shifts underway and where the
the business products or services. market is heading. The team identies the most important market
When the team has claried the BIPC by using story-telling and segments, and where the biggest potential growth is, what segments
they have understood the customer's feelings, it is possible to dene are declining and what peripherals segments deserve attention.
what will be offered to the client and what the client expects to receive. - Industry forces: The team should consider elements such as: com-
The analysis of this relation would guide to reformulate, if needed, the petitors, shareholders, workers and government, in order to identify
BIPC from the beginning. the competitive rivalry (Dobbs, 2014) of the industry. A SWOT anal-
Finally, with the information available and with the debate and anal- ysis (Porter, 2008) is suggested to identify where the company is
ysis during the process, the team can clearly state the value proposition and how the industry forces are shaping the competition.
offered to the customer (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). - Customer Relationships: The questions suggested in this topic are
used to help shaping the strategy that creates a long term relation
3.3. Phase 2: Market analysis with the customer.
- Business strategy: Consists of coding market drivers, key trends,
In this phase the team performs a series of analyses (see Fig. 9), threats and opportunities, among other valuable information into
which include the following: the strategy. The team is ready to construct the Market level for
the TRM. It can also serve to complement the business strategy in
- Political strategy: Addressed to dene the political environment and
BM, which is incomplete so far. For a complete denition it will be
the strategy needed to face it. The analysis is aimed to distinguish be-
needed to nish all the stages.
tween government actions that would threat all the rms from those
- Performance dimension: Finally, the team identies the characteris-
that would affect some industries. The team identies environmen-
tics that the market would appreciate which will be used to translate
tal regulations that would create enter barriers, regulations that af-
the markets needs and trends to product specications.
fect research and development, taxation, tariff, safety health,

It is important to notice that, even though it is not until the last

stage when the features and attributes of the product/service are iden-
tied, the team is asked to pre-dene them during this phase. The dy-
namic for doing it, is to identify them in the value proposition phase
but conrm them later with all the new information available. The
Fig. 7. Phase 0: Preparatory phase. BM and the TRM are constantly in review even after the process has
M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225 219

Fig. 8. Phase 1: Value proposition identication.

nished in order to have all the information gathered reected in busi- - Industry forces: The team identies who are the key players in the
ness strategic. value chain, and performs a quantitative analysis to evaluate the
The capacity for bringing value to the customer is strongly related suppliers' threat level. This analysis is important for shaping the
with the technology development. The technology trend analysis gives technological strategy.
the rm hints on how the new transportation and information system, - Technology forces: The commodities needed for re-shaping the
publicity, etc. are evolving. All these technologies improve the service value proposal come into account at this stage; the team describes
the CH provide. We suggest identifying CH identication in this phase, how the market for these technologies is, the cost structure and
but there is not enough information, so, it is suggested to return to cost trends.
this phase after completing Technology Phase, with the purpose of - Operational and technological strategy: At the end of this stage the
clearly dene them. rm is able to dene an OperationalTechnological strategy, i.e. the
level of investment, mayor technological areas, technological trends,
3.4. Phase 3: Product analysis where they are headed, technological alternatives, etc.
- Key trends: The team investigates what are the mayor technological
In the product analysis phase (see Fig. 10), the team studies the trends and how they represent opportunities or disruptive threats.
products that satisfy the market preferences, including: The analysis is addressed to discover emerging technologies and
how possible it is for them to be adopted in the future.
- New entrants: This is the analysis of new entrants to the industry by - Technological features: Finally the team raises questions about the
analyzing the differences with the own portfolio, competitive advan- critical systems required to produce a specic feature and attributes
tages/disadvantages, their value proposition and customer seg- that will be appreciate by the market.
- Substitutes: The same treatment that new entrants have to be carry- Currently the team has identied all the important activities and re-
ing on the substitutes products: the team answers questions ad- sources needed to create value. It is not a specic topic neither a specic
dressed to explore what products would replace theirs and how stage but is all the debate developed until now what makes easy to de-
easy is for customer to switch to the new ones. ne KA and KR. The KP are also identied given that the team is now
- Product strategy: It takes into account: product key differentiators, aware who the most important stakeholders are. The team has run
expected price, product platform and how the product family threat analysis and can tell who the most important partner is to be con-
might look like. sidered. The cost structure can be performed when the KA and KR are
- Identify the product: Finally the product that will be the focus of the identied the level of detail is not important for the moment and an
roadmap is dened: a description of the product brochure includ- approximation of cost is enough at this stage.
ing its features and attributes. To validate this, it is crucial to compare This phase helps to ll up technology layer in both, BM and TRM,
quantitatively the products attributes with the market requirements with the same operation strategy, making them to be correlated and
previously found. aligned to business goals and product strategy.

The output of this phase is positions in TRM product area, and in-
cludes elements for product strategy and, value proposal of features 3.6. Phase 5: TRM link & BMC integration
and attributes that the new product should have. Once the value pro-
posal features and attributes are identied, a feedback is suggested to The nal stage takes into consideration all the information retrieved
the value propositions phase; the team will incorporate them into the until now (see Fig. 12). The team has developed the market, product
value proposition to strengthen it. and, technology levels for both tools, BM and TRM. What is needed
now is to link TRM levels, using linking grids, and to make the integra-
3.5. Phase 4: Technology analysis tion of BMC according to each period of time.
The team has identied all the blocks needed to integrate the busi-
The technology analysis phase looks for the trends that would guide ness model; it is recommended to generate several possible BMCs for
the technological changes, and how these changes could modify the each period of time (now, mid-term and long-term) with variations be-
business model (see Fig. 11). This phase analyzes the following forces tween blocks, patterns, customers segments, etc., then evaluate them. It
and trends: is possible to test the BMC's using the story telling tool.

Fig. 9. Phase 2: Market analysis.

220 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225

Fig. 10. Phase 3: Product analysis.

With all the information available, each BMC formulated should 4.1. Phase 0: Preparatory phase
have much more detail and perspective. Finally, an analysis of the align-
ment between the created models and the strategy of the company is Given that the company has the expertise for developing this type of
performed (Pillkahn, 2008). product the goal is to explore a new and innovate line to deliver value to
It is important for the team members to keep in mind what outputs a growing segment. Also, the integration tool helped the rm to identify
are expected to have at the end of each stage; this is not only to keep issues to address, this means issues that the rm has inuence and
focus on the relevant points, but to ensure that at the end of the should take actions to have the products and technologies on time
whole process the team will have the blocks and levels for BMC integra- when the markets will need them. The questions asked give the rm a
tion and the TRM linking. It is desirable to re-check BMCs periodically general view of how the outputs of this process would look like at the
with the purpose of track changes and evaluate goal achievement and end; they could see a landscape for the company for the next two
progress. years and all the elements for running the business unit.
As it was told before, at this point it is crucial to dene the general
architecture for TRM. On this specic case, the company wants: to pro-
3.7. Building process integration tool vide the product to high performance athletes (medium term one
year), and to expand the business to occasional athletes (long term
For the application of the methodology, an automated tool was two years).
developed that makes the analysis simpler through all the phases This study revealed that for the market level, it is important to con-
its purpose was helping the team leader to guide the process by tell- sider that nutritional product market is growing and an alternative
ing him/her the next topics to be discussed. The tool was created product could increase the sales creating a new business unit. For the
using and datasheet, that have the description of all the questions product level analysis the rm considered exploring new technologies
for each phase, after the leader answers all the questions, it con- that help customers (gyms and sport clubs) to provide an easy and
structs both tools following the methodology described above. clean solution for the nal user (athletes); and the rm should care
(For more information about the tool, contact the corresponding about developing and selecting the right operation technologies and
author). manufacture activities.

4.2. Phase 1: Value proposition identication

4. Case study
The main purpose of this phase was to use the methodology for
The case study presents the analysis developed in a medium size obtaining ideas from team members through discussion, and gathering
manufacturer and marketer of beverage dispensing systems (approxi- the useful information to create value proposition.
mately 1500 associates). The company has facilities in United States, The team state the objective pursued by the BIPC. The BIPC chosen
Mexico, Australia, and Europe. The dispensing systems are a machine for the case was to deliver products that provide customers nutritional
with technology to mix water and syrup to deliver beverage like soft- beverages before and after work out, the objective was to offer new prod-
drinks, juice, and coffee. ucts for a different market segment from current business model. The BI
The team explored possible BI's and chose the one that repre- PC chosen was proved using the tools suggested by Osterwalder and
sents a new and unexplored business for the rm. The company Pigneur (2010), the results were:
looked for reaching the growing segment of people that care about
their health using gym facilities and consuming supplements. This a) Storytelling helped the team to visualize the scenario when the
segment was divided in two main groups; high performance ath- product nally reached the market.
letes and occasional athletes; the rsts are people that train their b) Kill/thrill sessions gave a new perspective and brought into discus-
bodies as part of a preparation plan for high competence at all kind sion important issues to consider.
of sports. The seconds are people that train with the health-care
purpose. Using this methodology, the team was able to identify the potential
Experts collaborated in the process by using the methodology de- segments and concentrated efforts over the one that would be the target
scribed in this study. After all the relevant information was collected, for the current business. Finally, the contrast between customer feelings
the integration tool was used to obtain the BMCs and TRM. Following and expectations and what the rm was willing to achieve, helped them
is presented, step by step, how the integration tool was applied to the to dene the value proposal, which was: to deliver athletes a high qual-
case study. ity automated machine which provides a supplementary beverage to

Fig. 11. Phase 4: Technology analysis.

M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225 221

Fig. 12. Phase 5: TRM Link & BMC integration.

improve athlete's performance at gym, also to ensure that the delivered and revenue attractiveness. With all these elements identied, the
product is healthy and to provide continuous technical support. team was able to envision the business strategy, and to construct the
TRM market level. Also the methodology gave the necessary elements
4.3. Phase 2: Market analysis to identify the CR needed to integrate the BMC.

In this phase, the team discussed the political strategy the rm 4.4. Phase 3: Product analysis
could have in order to face government's policy; it is not an issue
that the company could inuence but the rm needs to be aware in The main purpose in this phase is to study the products that satisfy
order to develop a proper business strategy. As well, the team the market preferences, to do this the team rst quanties the level of
discussed the macroeconomic indicators (TRM market level), main threat for new entrant and substitutes products, second they identies
socioeconomic and societal trends and how they affect business. Af- the product brochure for next performed a market product grid anal-
terwards, market forces were analyzed with different time spans, ysis. Subsequently, the team developed the TRM for the features that
also some topic concerning customers' landscape were discussed, would impulse the characteristics that the market would appreciate,
the team was able to distinguish many other potentials segments, and nally, they complemented the business strategy (developed previ-
and identied which ones were growing and which one were declin- ously), with the product strategy.
ing. All this analysis and discussion helped to gather relevant infor- The new entrance product threat analysis made evident the medium
mation for directing future efforts. level of threat and also and more important that distributors and chan-
In order to clarify the level of competence threat, a specic analysis nels were easily accessible for the competence. This gave a hint of what
was performed; the result was that there were only a few competitors strategy the company should explore to have the distributors under
in the market and they already had the product. Then, a second threat control; for example exclusivity on exchange or discounts or nancing.
analysis was made for buyer's group. The threat level was considered The team identied that traditional brands could create a new business
medium and the differentiator factor was the large quantity of informa- unit and become an important new entrance product for the market
tion the buyer had about these kinds of products. with strong advantage.
The methodology provided information to shape the future custom- The developed tool helped the team identify the level of threat for
er relationships, to be aware of the customer needs, to establish what substitute products, which was considered high as buyer is price sensi-
binds customers to a company's offer, and to identify switching cost tive and, depending on the moving cost, the customer change from one

Fig. 13. BMC for the case study.

222 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225

product to a new product. The workshop and the discussion gave the feedback of these features and attributes was given to improve the value
opportunity to understand what products or services can replace theirs, proposition phase.
and let them to consider different approaches for the same product with
different characteristics. 4.5. Phase 4: Technology analysis
Once market trends and the desired product characteristics were
established, the team numbered the features areas (FA). They describe The main objective of this phase is to look for the trends that would
the product attributes that the market would appreciate. The team de- guide the technological changes, and how these changes could modify
ned the future product and created their product brochure. After that, the business model, to accomplish this it was used the integration
it was determined what performance dimensions would be impacted tool. The building process integration tool was conducted in order to in-
more for each FA using linking grids tool to make product market rela- vestigate about regulatory trends that could represent an opportunity
tionships, which allowed the team to construct the TRM product-level. A or a threat for the business.

Fig. 14. Final TRM for the case study.

M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225 223

The team identied that even though the suppliers existed in an ac- develop strongly related TRM-levels. This has an important implication
ceptable number, all of them were focus in a certain portfolio and there at the management level of the rm because R&D efforts would concen-
were no new products available for the moment. Also, the team recog- trate only on the product feature that would satisfy the characteristics
nized suppliers that could provide the syrup, instrumentation, casing, the market would appreciate.
technical service, transportation and distribution. The study permitted The case of study helped to enhance the knowledge about how to
to detect the importance of distributors and channels for the proposed run cognitive processes, because the team talked about strategic issues
BM, and also helped to evaluate the current way the rm was delivering with a systematic guide allowing different perspectives. Also, the ap-
their products. plication of the methodology makes evident that having a clear
After this, a brainstorming was made of all the technical features of business-need contributes to a successful roadmap. One of the most
the future product including services and customer's support. Then, a important advantages of the building process integration is that it
Product-Technologies Grid analysis was performed; using the integration made possible to create a BM for the current situation and also for
tool was possible to prioritize the technologies which improve the most the medium and long-term; this would give to the rms hints of
relevant product features for the market. The TRM product level was ful- which elements the business could change according to the required
lled but only with the most relevant technology attributes. At last, the conditions. At the same time the market, product and technology
team had elements to dene the technology strategy. strategies were created taking a close look to the necessities of the
business administration.
4.6. Phase 5: TRM link & BC integration Even though the visualization of the business in the future is a very
valuable management capability, the robustness of the strategy created
In this last phase, a general review analysis was performed with the is validated when the customer is considered in the process; having the
purpose of assessing all the phases and looking for the elements that customer's opinion during the creation of the strategy validates the out-
help to construct a proper BM. Also, all the information was added on puts. Furthermore, when the business is running and the value proposi-
an empty TRM-template and the routes were identied. tion has been tested with the client, then the success of the strategic
Fig. 13 shows the integrated BMC for the case study considered only management tools are proved; before that, the target is to structure
for long-term period. It is suggested to elaborate one BMC for each peri- the most robust proposal as possible. The awareness of the society pref-
od of analysis (now, mid-term and long-term), but in this case, the team erences in the market is the critical feedback for any BM or TRM created.
choose a short period of time (two years) for the building process inte- The application of the methodology proved to help in the identication
gration, and they wanted to visualize only one BM. The gathered infor- of the elements that assemble the BMC and also the levels needed to
mation was used in the construction of the TRM, the nal product is structure the company strategy.
shown in Fig. 14.
6. Future research
5. Conclusions
It is recommended for future research to evaluate the outputs
The key ndings of this research complement those of earlier studies achieved; the following methods may be interesting topics to extend
(Abe, Shinokura, Suzuki, Kubo, & Sakuma, 2006; Abe, Shinokura, Suzuki, this methodology;
Kubo, & Sakuma, 2006; de Reuver, Bouwman, & Haaker, 2013) that
state, BMC and TRM have the common objective of helping to increase (1) Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) suggested a structured way to
persuasive power for funding engineers/researchers to pursue the inno- evaluate the BMC created by comparing it with a matrix, which
vative planning of research and development. has all the elements recommended for a robust model, and
The building process integration proved that the strength of both (2) Jeffrey, Sedgwick, and Robinson (2013) set a roadmap evaluation
strategic management tools (BMC & TRM) can be complemented and re- metrics focused on whether the objectives of the TRM have been
sulted in a more robust methodology, which took the pros of each tool translated into actual programs and policies.
and produced two products strategically aligned. Also, the application
of the methodology helped to obtain the ideas from a group of people
with different expertise and knowledge within the rms, and trans- Acknowledgments
formed them into a business model that responds to differ periods of
time, in order to achieve short, medium and long term objectives. In con- We acknowledge SENESCYT Ecuador for the resources provided as
clusion, during the building process integration, BMC is complemented well as CONACYT Mexico for their support. An earlier version of this
with time perspective the TRM has. paper was presented at the Portland International Center for Manage-
The methodology suggested the connection between levels can be ment of Engineering and Technology 2015 Conference, August 26,
performed better by using the linking grid tool; it made possible to 2015, Portland, USA

Appendix A

Appendix 1
Issues that the team go through the building process integration.

Issues References

Preparatory - What are the critical goals? Fast-start Roadmapping Workshop Approaches (Phaal R.,
- What issues are important to address? Farrukh, Mitchell, & Probert, 2003)/Mobilize (BMC). Framing the
- What are likely to be the most interesting and important topics? project goals, planning the project, and assembling the team
- What might the outputs look like? Will these meet the aims? (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)
- Where do we want to go?
- Where are we now?
- How can we get there?
- Why do we need to act?

(continued on next page)

224 M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225

Appendix 1 (continued)

Issues References

Preparatory - What should we do?

- How should we do it?
- Named and describe the expertise of the team's members

Value proposition - Describe the BIPC Mobilize (BMC). Testing preliminary ideas/Understanding
- Objectives pursued? (BMC). Developing a good understanding of the context in which
- Test preliminary BIPC the business model will involve (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)
- Brainstorming the possible customer segments
- Empathy map
- What is offered to the client? (My will)
- What is the client expecting to receive? (My vision)
- Formulate the value proposal
Market analysis - Rivalry and government policy Building the rm's political strategy (5F's Porter) (Vining, Shapiro,
- Entry barriers and government policy & Borges, 2005)/(BMC) Strategy; macroeconomics forces, key
- Substitutes and government policy trends, market forces, industry forces (Osterwalder & Pigneur,
- Suppliers and government policy 2010)/Fast start roadmapping workshop approach (Phaal R.,
- Buyers and government policy Farrukh, Mitchell, & Probert, 2003)/T Plan (Phaal et al., 2004a)
- Current overall conditions from a macroeconomics perspective
- Current capital market conditions as they relate to your capital needs
- Economic infrastructure of the market in which your business operates
- Major societal trends that may inuence your business model
- Major socioeconomics trends relevant to your business model
- Key issues and transforming your market from customer and offer perspectives
- Major market segments, their attractiveness, and spotting new segments
- Incumbent competitors and their relative strength
- Market needs and analysis how well they are served
- Elements related to customers switching business to competitors
- Performance dimension (Dene the performance dimension: characteristics the
market would appreciate)
Product analysis - Who are the new entrants in your market? (BMC) Strategy, industry forces (Osterwalder & Pigneur,
- How are they different? 2010)/Fast start roadmapping workshop approach (Phaal R.,
- What competitive advantage or disadvantages do they have? Farrukh, Mitchell, & Probert, 2003)/Technology management and
- Which barriers must they overcome? roadmapping at the rm level (Moehrle, Isenmann, & Phaal, 2013)
- What is their value proposition?
- Which customer segments are they focused on?
- Which products or services could replace ours?
- How much do they cost compared with ours?
- How easy is for customers to switch to these substitutes?
- What business model tradition do these substitute products stem from?
- Identify the product
Technology analysis - What are the major technology trends both inside and outside your market? (BMC) Strategy, key trends, industry forces, macroeconomic
- What technologies represent important opportunities or disruptive threats? forces (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)/Building the rm's
- What emerging technologies are peripheral customers adopting? political strategy (5F's Porter) (Vining, Shapiro, & Borges,
- What regulatory trend inuences your market? 2005)/Fast start (Moehrle, Isenmann, & Phaal, 2013)
- What rules may affect your business model?
- Which regulations and taxes affect customer demand?
- Who are the key players in your industry value chain?
- To what extend does your business model depend on other players?
- Are peripheral players emerging?
- Identify the critical system requirements and their targets
- Specify the major technology areas
- Specify the technological drivers and their targets
- Identify technological alternatives and their time lines
- Recommend the technology alternatives that should be pursued
Link & integration - Linking the three levels, market, product and technology; nd gaps and look for T Plan (Phaal R., Farrukh, Mitchell, & Probert, 2003)-
future actions /Technology management and roadmapping at the rm level
- Creation (Prototyping potential BM for exploring different direction for the nal (Moehrle, Isenmann, & Phaal, 2013)/(BMC) creation, design
BM. Change the blocks could give an opportunity to explore new ideas or a totally (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)
different BM. Test preliminary BM. Storytelling. Select which of the potential BM
are more suitable with the strategic align)

References de Reuver, M., Bouwman, H., Haaker, T., 2013. Business model roadmapping: a practical
approach to come from an existing to a desired busines model. Int. J. Innov. Manag.
Abe, H., Shinokura, K., Suzuki, A., Kubo, H., Sakuma, H., 2006. 2nd Generation business XVII (1), 18.
modeling: smart innovation planning method managing the link to corporate value Dobbs, M.E., 2014. Guidelines for applying Porter's ve forces framework: a set of indus-
creation for R&D outputs. PICMET, pp. 18 Istanbul. try analysis templates. Compet. Rev. 24 (1), 3245.
Abe, H., Ashiki, T., Suzuki, A., Jinno, F., Sakuma, H., 2009. Integrating business modeling Godet, M., 2010. Future memories. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 77, 14571463.
and roadmapping methods the innovation support technology (IST) approach. Jeffrey, H., Sedgwick, J., Robinson, C., 2013. Technology roadmaps: An evaluation of their
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76 (1), 8090. success in the renewable energy sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 80, 10151027.
Chesbrough, H., 2010. Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Keupp, M.M., Palmi, M., Gassmann, O., 2012. The strategic management of innovation: a
Plan. 43, 354363. systematic review and paths for future research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 14, 367390.
Chungyalpa, M.W., Bora, B., 2015. Towards conceptualizing business strategies. Int. Moehrle, M.G., Isenmann, R., Phaal, 2013. Technology Roadmapping for Strategy and In-
J. Multidiscip. Approach Stud. 2 (1). novation. Charting the Route to Success. Springer, Ed.
Cosner, R.R., Hynds, E.J., Fusfeld, A.R., Loweth, C.V., Scouten, C., Albright, 2007. Integrating Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2009. Business Model Generation. Modderman Drukwerk,
roadmapping into technical planning. Res. Technol. Manag. 50 (6), 3148. Amsterdam.
M.A. Toro-Jarrn et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 110 (2016) 213225 225

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2010. Business Model Generation. John Wiley and Sons, New Zott, C., Amit, R., 2010. Business model design: an activity systems perspective. Long
Yersey. Range Plan. 43, 216226.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., Mitchell, R., Probert, D., 2003. Starting-up roadmapping fast. Res.
Technol. Manag. 46 (2), 5258.
Miguel Angel Toro-Jarrn earned the Electronic Engineering degree from the Escuela
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Probert, D.R., 2004a. Customizing roadmapping. Res. Technol.
Politcnica Nacional of Ecuador, in May 2005. He earned his M.Sc. in May 2015, at the
Manag. 47 (2), 2638.
Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, Mexico. He worked at Siemens as a Tech-
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Probert, D.R., 2004b. Technology roadmapping a planning frame-
nical Manager and BU manager.
work for evolution and revolution. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 71, 526.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Probert, D.R., 2006. Technology management tools: concept, devel-
Idalia Estefania PonceJaramillo is a doctorate student at Tecnologico de Monterrey,
opment and application. Technovation 26, 336344.
Campus Monterrey, Mexico, in industrial engineering. She earned the Biomedical Engi-
Pillkahn, U., 2008. In: Aktiengesellschaft, S. (Ed.), Using Trends and Scenarios as Tools for
neering degree from Tecnologico de Monterrey in May 2005. She earned the M. SC in
Strategy Development Shaping the Future of Your Enterprise. Publics Corporate
May 2014, at Tecnologico de Monterrey in Mexico. She made her master thesis in medical
Publishing, Erlangen, Germany.
technology management while working at the Mexican Institute of Social Security.
Porter, M.E., 2008. The ve Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review.
Ringland, G., 2010. The role of scenarios in strategic foresight. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
David Gemes-Castorena is an Associate Professor of technology and innovation manage-
Chang. 77, 14931498.
ment, at Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey. He received his D.Sc. from The
Rohrbeck, R., Schwarz, J.O., 2013. The value contribution of strategic foresight: insights
George Washington University. His research interest involves technological strategy, and
from an empirical study of large European companies. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
applied technological foresight.
Chang. 80, 15931606.
Vining, A.R., Shapiro, D.M., Borges, B., 2005. Building the rm's political (lobbying) strat-
egy. J. Public Aff. 5, 150175.