Technology Management—Structuring the Strategic Dialogue
Robert Phaal, University of Cambridge
Paul J. Palmer, Loughborough University
Abstract: Successful innovation requires effective
communication within and between technical and non-
technical communities, which can be challenging due to
different educational backgrounds, experience, perceptions,
and attitudes. Roadmapping has emerged as a method that
can enable effective dialogue between these groups, and the
way in which information is structured is a key feature that
enables this communication. This is an area that has not
received much attention in the literature, and this article seeks
to address this gap by describing in detail the structures that
have been successfully applied in roadmapping workshops
and processes, from which key learning points and future
research directions are identified.
Keywords: Roadmapping, Strategy, Innovation, Technology
Management
EMJ Focus Areas: Innovation and New Product Development,
Strategic and Operations Management
R
oadmapping techniques are now widespread and are
used by many organizations to develop strategy, make
key decisions, and coordinate activities (e.g., Willyard
and McClees, 1987; Groenveld, 1997; EIRMA, 1997; Kostoff and
Schaller, 2001; Albright and Kappel, 2003; de Laat and McKibbin,
2003; Whalen, 2007). The concept and application of roadmapping
has been adapted to suit many different contexts and purposes,
ranging from supporting new product development (Willyard
and McClees, 1987), to business strategy (Phaal et al., 2007) and
government policy (Phaal et al., 2004b).
Roadmaps can be thought of as strategic “lenses” through
which individuals and groups of stakeholders can view an area
of common interest (see Exhibit 1). This might be a technology,
product, or business unit, or an entire sector of industry or field
of science. The roadmap lens can be thought of as comprising
two “layers”: a “structure” layer that enables information to be
positioned and connected in a logical way, and a “graphical”
layer used to support representation and communication of key
concepts within the roadmap.
The types of issues that stimulate organizations to deploy
roadmapping methods tend to share some characteristics that are
inherently challenging for managers and policy makers to deal
with:
• Complexity, in terms of market structure and dynamics,
product and process design, technology and infrastructure,
Refereed management tool manuscript. Accepted by Associate Editor O'Neal.
64
leading to large amounts of diverse information having to be
considered.
• Uncertainty, since roadmaps are forward looking, and are
generally used to explore longer-term trends and issues,
in order to develop strategy and to prioritize options and
actions that are coherent with the organization’s vision and
goals. Forecasts are needed, which are often highly uncertain,
particularly in the longer-term.
• Ambiguity. Due to the complexity of the business and
innovation systems where roadmapping is applied, many
different stakeholders must typically be involved if a
roadmap is to be credible and have impact. Participants in
the roadmapping process are likely to have a diverse set of
skills, experience, and personalities, as well as potentially
diverse cultural backgrounds and languages.
Despite these challenges, decisions must be taken that lead
to action. Structure is a key consideration when designing an
effective roadmapping process, since the themes, structure,
and language used to support strategic discussion within
and between organizations need to be clearly represented to
mitigate the risks associated with the above challenges. The
graphical style used to depict information within the architecture
provided by the roadmap structure is also important, as the
main reason for roadmapping is to support strategic dialogue
and communication.
This article is concerned with how structure can be used to
support strategic dialogue within and between organizations. The
focus is on the use of structure in roadmapping workshops, which
provide the opportunity to bring together groups of stakeholders
with diverse perspectives.
Despite the widespread use of roadmapping as a management
technique, research in this area is relatively sparse. The structures
described in this article are based principally on more than
a decade of applied research and practical experience of the
authors in supporting the development of roadmaps in a wide
variety of business and research community contexts (e.g., Phaal
et al., 2001, 2004a&b, 2007). The aims are to support the practical
application of roadmapping, and to make a contribution to the
conceptual foundations of the technique in order to stimulate
further research.
Roadmaps and Roadmapping Processes
It is important to distinguish the concepts of roadmap and
roadmapping:
• Roadmaps are representations (usually visual) of strategy,
which can take many forms, developed to summarize outputs
from a roadmapping process for reporting and dissemination
purposes.
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 22 No. 1 March 2010
Exhibit 1. Roadmapping as a “Strategic Lens”

Roadmap
Business / ‘lens’ Understanding &
strategic issue communication
Information Graphical
structure style

• Roadmapping is the process (the series of activities and
interactions) associated with the development of the
roadmap, often as part of another business process (e.g.,
policy, strategy, innovation, and new product or service
development).
Roadmaps take many forms (Phaal et al., 2001), although
the most common (and flexible) is illustrated in Exhibit 2,
comprising a time-based, multi-layer structure. The architecture
of the roadmap can be configured to suit the specific issue being
addressed, in terms of both the timeframes depicted and the
themes and sub-themes represented in the layers, reflecting the
critical perspectives that are necessary to understand and explore
the issue. The overall structure of the roadmap addresses a series
of key questions:
• The timeframes are concerned with: Where do we want to
go? Where are we now? How can we get there?
• The layers address: Why do we need to act? What do we need
to do? How can we do it?
The roadmap structure shown in Exhibit 2 can be used to
capture and represent information as part of a business process
such as strategy or innovation. Such processes are often depicted
as a funnel (see Exhibit 3), which has very different characteristics
at the start and end points. Roadmaps can be used throughout
the process to support communication, but the content of
the roadmap, and the process for developing the roadmap, is
very different at the exploratory front-end compared to the
implementation stage where roadmaps become much more like
project plans (but typically at the program level).
Workshops play a particularly important role in roadmapping
processes, providing an opportunity for key stakeholders to meet
and interact, to understand each other’s views, and to agree what
needs to be done. The agenda and activities used in the workshop,
together with the facilitation techniques deployed, must be
carefully designed to support the particular organizational aims
and context. Workshops are characterized by activities that are
either divergent (brainstorming, creation, and exploration) or
convergent in nature (clustering, focusing, or prioritising).

Exhibit 2. Generalised Roadmap Form (Phaal et al., 2004a, adapted from Groenveld, 1997)

Functional perspectives Roadmap framework Knowledge Information

(Roadmap (Supports integrated and aligned types types
architecture) strategic and innovation planning) Time When?
Typical Past Short-term Medium-term Long-term Vision
viewpoints

commercial & Market Route(s) forward Drivers

strategic Why? Strategy
perspectives Needs
Business
Pull
Design, Product
Form
development & Function
production Service What?
perspectives
Performance
System
Push
Technology & Technology
research Solutions
perspectives Science How? Capabilities
Resources
Resources

Three key questions: 2) Where are 3) How can we 1) Where do

we now? get there? we want to go?

Engineering Management Journal Vol. 22 No. 1 March 2010 65

Exhibit 3. Role of Roadmapping and Workshops in Strategic Business Processes

Workshop intervention

(strategy, innovation, new product development)

Workshop intervention

Requirements fluid
Process funnel

Concepts fuzzy
Requirements clear, stable
Many unknowns Time, effort, iteration Concepts clear, stable
Many options
Fewer unknowns, risks understood
Many assumptions
Fewer options, greater constraints
Few constraints
Scenarios

? ? ? ?
?

?
? ?
? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ?

? ? ?

Divergent process Convergent process

Explore Shape Plan Implement

The structures that are used to organize information, and 25 participants from different functions, business units, or
the techniques used to interact with these structures to capture, organizations.
process, and summarize knowledge, are crucial for ensuring the
workshop addresses the key issues in what are always complex, Roadmapping is a flexible approach, and workshops are
uncertain, and ambiguous situations. typically customized to suit the particular situation. Over the years
a range of practical workshop techniques have been developed
Examples of the Use of Structure that enable large groups of participants with different perspectives
The ways in which structure is used within workshops to support to share and capture their views, as a basis for strategic discussion
strategic dialogue are illustrated in this section with reference to and decision-making. The approach focuses on supporting the
two related approaches, including examples of structures used at human interaction that is so critical for making progress in these
different stages of the workshop process. The first case is based situations, and uses very simple techniques that rely on structured
on a process that uses very simple materials (wall charts, sticky wall charts and sticky notes. The types of structures that are used
notes, and pens) to enable the sharing, capture, analysis, and in these workshops are described below.
synthesis of participant knowledge (“S-Plan”, Phaal et al., 2007).
The second case demonstrates how structure can be used in a way Perspectives template. Key challenges before and at the start
that exploits the potential of information and communication of the workshop relate to:
technology based on workshops conducted to identify key • How to encourage busy participants to prepare for the
technology requirements for future electronics enabled products workshop, so that the most progress can be made during the
(the ways in which such technology might be used in the future limited time available during the workshop.
are discussed further in Conclusions). • How to ensure that available information is introduced to the
workshop in a form that does not take too much time, and
Strategic Appraisal which can be absorbed by participants.
The Centre for Technology Management at the University of
Cambridge has been developing practical workshop-based The approach that has been found to work well is to provide
methods for supporting the rapid initiation of roadmapping participants with a very simple one-page presentation template in
processes since 1998. This has involved more than 200 applications advance, which is configured to be compatible with the roadmap
in collaboration with a wide range of organizations, at company structure, as illustrated in Exhibit 4. This is the simplest format,
and sector levels (government departments, research networks, where the only structure in the presentation reflects the timeframes
and trade associations). Two “fast-start” approaches have been represented in the roadmap (short-, medium-, and long-term).
developed: Sometimes additional slides are used, or more structure is
1. T-Plan (Phaal et al., 2001) focuses on product-technology provided (e.g., including themes such as “market”, “product”, and
roadmapping, based around four half-day, multifunctional “technology”, also compatible with the roadmap structure). This
workshops involving 8-12 participants. approach has the advantages that completing the template does
2. S-Plan (Phaal et al., 2007) supports strategy and policy not appear too onerous to the participants (although restricting
development at business unit, corporate, and sector levels, the perspectives to only one slide can be a challenge), and that
typically associated with a one-day workshop involving 15- presenting the material is quick (typically about five minutes per

66 Engineering Management Journal Vol. 22 No. 1 March 2010

perspective). The content from the perspectives presentations is
transferred to the landscape wall chart (see Strategic Landscape)
during the workshop, providing a starting point for the next
activity.
Structured sticky notes. Sticky notes are the primary
mechanism that is used in the T-Plan and S-Plan methods for
representing participant views, using a range of different colors
and shapes. All participants contribute, using sticky notes to
capture, share, discuss, and organize perspectives.
Exhibit 4. Perspectives Template
Priority Issues / Actions
Short Term (0-1yr)
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Exhibit 5. Structured Sticky Note
Timescale (S/M/L/Year): Linkages:
Issue (Please write clearly!):
Name:
landscape”, where the whole group of participants use a large
wall chart to capture and review perspectives. The wall chart
is structured using roadmapping principles, highlighting
key timeframes and themes (such as external trends and
drivers), strategy, product, and service platforms, technology,
infrastructure, suppliers, skills, and other resources, representing
key aspects of the overall system being explored. Participants use
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 22 No. 1
It has been found that including some structure for the sticky
notes improves the quality of information captured (see Exhibit
5). For example, colors can be used to represent business units,
and participants can be encouraged to specify timeframes and
linkages to other elements of the roadmap. Different sizes and
shapes of sticky notes can be used to highlight specific issues,
risks or opportunities.
Strategic landscape. The first activity in a strategic (S-Plan)
roadmapping workshop is the development of a “strategic
(things we should do & issues we should respond to)
Medium Term (2-3yrs) Long Term (4-10yrs)
xxx xxx
xxx xxx
xxx xxx
xxx xxx
xxx xxx
various types of sticky notes and other stationery to capture and
share views, in order to identify and prioritize key opportunities,
risks, and other issues (“landmarks” in the landscape).
Exhibit 6 illustrates typical roadmap “architectures”, including
the use of a wall chart in an S-Plan workshop. The line drawing
and photograph in Exhibit 6 are from different projects: a small,
high-tech start-up company, focusing on one product platform
in the electronics sector; and a medium-sized manufacturing
company in the energy sector, respectively. In both cases the
structure of the roadmap was customized to suit the scope and
focus of the application.
Scratch pads, topic roadmaps, and feedback templates. Topics
identified during the strategic landscaping activity are explored in
more detail, in smaller groups of 2-6 participants, taking care to
match focus and expertise, ensuring a balance of experience and
perspective (especially commercial and technical knowledge).
Various structures are used to guide these discussions, tailored
specifically to the topic area and overall process and aims. In each
case these are printed or drawn on wall charts, and participants
use sticky notes to capture, discuss, and summarize discussion.
Two examples are shown in Exhibit 7:
1. The line drawing was used in a workshop where fund-
raising messages were being developed for a medical charity,
with participants drawn from both the medical research
community and the charitable foundation. Half of the chart
is used as a “scratch pad” for participants to capture, discuss,
organize, and prioritize their thinking. The other half of
the chart is used to summarize the key learning points for
feedback to other workshop participants for discussion.
2. The inset photograph shows the output from a “topic
roadmapping” session, where groups of 2-4 participants
March 2010 67
Exhibit 6. Strategic Landscape: Example Roadmap Architecture and Workshop Activity

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Vision
• Trends & Drivers (macro level)

Environment
Market - Social, Technological, Economic,
Environmental, Political
• Sector trends
• Competitors
System integrator
Module integrator
Manufacturer

Business (strategy & goals)

Programmes
Products

Performance Display size

Resolution
Colour
Update
Flexibility QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

• Product design qualification

• Process qualification
• Customer business case
Components

• Commercial framework
Product

• Tech transfer
• Design services

• On site fab support

• Test solutions

• Mobility
• Line width
Components
Technology

• Material flexibility
• Technology area X
• Sheet
• Technology area Y

Supply dependences

• People
Resources /
Other

• Facilities
• Finance

Exhibit 7. Scratch Pads, Topic Roadmaps and Feedback Templates

Theme: Group:

1) Theme 2) Ambition
Use post-it notes to explore theme (capture views and cluster) Consolidate communication message for feedback

Headline message:

Detailed goal:

The current situation:

QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

We will achieve this goal by (actions):

How we will measure this :

We hope this goal will be supported by:

68 Engineering Management Journal Vol. 22 No. 1 March 2010

 explore a particular “landmark” in more detail, defining
goals, possible routes forward, and learning points (for
example, barriers, enablers, risks, and key decision points).
Reporting. It is important that immediately after a workshop
the raw outputs are transcribed, analyzed, and reported, to provide
feedback to participants and to take forward actions. Exhibit 8
shows the “executive summary” graphical output from a workshop
to identify national research priorities for a key industrial sector.
This particular view (which formed part of a more extensive
report), highlights the strategic relationships between trends
and drivers, application areas, and technology. To facilitate wider
consultation, this output was published on the internet (www.
technology-roadmaps.co.uk) using wiki technology to enable
the submission of comments, that were fed back to a group of
experts for appraisal as part of the roadmap update process.
This kind of spreadsheet-enabled representation is increasingly
being used within S-Plan workshops to enable real-time analysis
and reporting, touching on the methods described in Data
Collection Template.
Technology Foresight
The examples in this section illustrate a workshop-based process
that has been used to support the identification of key technologies
that will have an impact on future electronics-enabled products, to
focus activity in an industry-academia consortium. The approach
deploys form-based templates within workshops, which are
designed to enable data storage, analysis, and presentation using
widely available software systems.
Exhibit 8. Reporting: Example Landscape Driver Matrix
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 22 No. 1
Data collection template. As suggested in the previous
sections, the provision of a template has an influence on the type
of information that participants provide within the workshop
environment. Although this can be considered detrimental, as it
can lead and constrain contributors, the structure imposed makes
it much easier to collate and analyze the information after the
workshop. This potentially adds to the value of the information
as it moves toward an updateable database which can support
dynamic queries, rather than the static capture of knowledge as
in the previous examples.
The design of good templates is predicated upon the basis of
previous knowledge or expertise in the topic of the technology
roadmap, and, in order to be effective, needs to include both free
text and selection boxes. The forms used in Exhibit 9 were used to
collect data for a very broad, technology roadmap on electronics-
enabled products and were founded on ideas developed and
trialled at an earlier series of workshops. The fields in the forms
had a one-to-one correspondence to a data entry form used in the
post-workshop phase described later in this article.
When using a highly structured approach, an important
principle to follow is “one form, one idea”, coupled with
encouraging multiple contributions on the same topic from all
participants. Failure to apply this principle leads to forms that
are at best difficult to capture into the database and at worst
impossible. Note that the overlap of ideas across many forms
is deliberate and welcome as it ensures that all delegates have a
“voice” and enables the development of consensus. An intriguing
observation is that strong individuals can sometimes find
this process objectionable, since it is very difficult for them to
March 2010 69
“sway” the outcome of the meeting as their contribution has no
special weight.
Effective facilitation is the key to success of using this
approach in the workshop situation, along with careful handling of
participants. The use of on-line forms and screens fragments the
group, and while it may suit some individuals, does not seem to work
well with the majority of people. A similar fragmenting effect seems
to dominate the group if a boardroom or lecture layout is used. The
cabaret layout (see Exhibit 10), along with the use of paper-based
forms, has been found to provide a very good working environment
as it enables people to discuss thoughts in small groups. This layout
also allows for easy movement of the facilitator between groups to
help guide the process and answer individual queries.
In this example there were three forms to cover different
phases of the workshop process. All the forms shared the same
common aspects, but were tailored to cover future markets,
emerging and future applications, and research needs. The
phases were presented to the participants in this order to identify
research needs, as this had been identified as one of the required
outputs, and generally participants find it progressively easier to
offer information in this sequence.
The process of identifying timescales is worth noting.
Experience has shown that opinions relating to timescale are very
difficult to elicit from participants. The “radio button” approach,
asking delegates to choose an option for each year over the
timescale of interest, has worked well in workshops. Different
classifications are used according to the emphasis of the form,
but the classifications broadly comply with widely accepted
phases of innovation: no action, research phase, commercially
available, widely exploited, use in decline. Technology-readiness
levels might also be used, although the standard definitions do
not allow for an obsolescent phase.
To provide feedback in real time to the delegates, the edge
of each form is color coded in a way that represents the data and
Exhibit 9. Data Collection Forms
70
timeline, and pinned to the wall with colored edges overlapping.
This is seen in action in Exhibit 11, providing effective feedback
to delegates in real time. This feedback is important, even though
it appears ad hoc, as it reinforces the value of the contributions
that are being made using the forms in the minds of the delegates,
and suggests something of the information that might be drawn
out of the collated forms by data-analysis techniques.
Post-workshop analysis. The post-workshop phase requires
that the data be collated into a database. The authors have tended
to use the term knowledgebase to emphasize that there is no
particular need to specify any specialist software. In fact, the
principles embodied here have been successfully incorporated
into Microsoft Excel, Access, and SQL databases, as well as open-
source mySQL with a variety of interfaces to input and present
the data. The necessary design skills to create such databases
are widespread, and for the amount of information collected in
workshops, simple database designs suffice.
Dynamic views. There are many types of analysis that might
be usefully used once a database has been created. The following
examples are by no means exhaustive, but have been chosen to
illustrate what can be achieved. The discerning factor in these
examples is that they have all been created dynamically from
the underlying database using common spreadsheet techniques,
and so do not require any specialist knowledge to replicate them.
The dynamic aspect of the analysis is critical to the worth of this
approach, since it enables consistency of representation as further
data is added to the database. Potentially this is of great value when
the issue of maintaining technology roadmaps is considered.
Data from checked fields can be consolidated into a variety
of pie-chart representations. Here, Exhibits 12 and 13 represent
the ranked importance of markets and technologies, respectively,
when delegates were asked to provide information on research
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 22 No. 1 March 2010
Exhibit 10. Cabaret Workshop Layout Exhibit 12. Research Needs: Key Markets

Exhibit 13. Research Needs: Key Technologies

Exhibit 11. Workshop Forms Combined to Form Wall Chart

needs. This particular viewpoint was important to this workshop,

as the outputs were intended to inform stakeholders on priorities
for funding.
It is easy to conceive how simple views such as this can be
dynamically linked to the underlying data. A more interesting
view is shown in Exhibit 14, where the association between
markets and technologies is represented in a cross-tab chart with
automatic colors. The chart has been sorted so the “hot” markets
and technologies have been moved to the top left hand corner.
This example clearly shows how consensus can be seen to
emerge through the collation of individual contributions. Within
the group of delegates when this data was collected, there were
two individuals from a waste-remediation background and
one from a food-industry background. Although not formally
analyzed, as individual contributions were anonymous, it seems
that there are two islands of contributions that correspond to
these interests; however, these islands of contributions have not
affected the overall output. To ensure self-consistency, the colors
in Exhibit 14 have been generated using an algorithm. In this case,
intersections of markets and technologies have been determined
by the number of “votes” in the collated forms and color assigned
by percentile thresholds. This is an easy algorithm to incorporate
into a spreadsheet, and can be directly linked to the underlying
data. In this case “hotter” colors are used as a metaphor for
importance—it is a system that is widely recognized and also
corresponds to the natural order of “rainbow” colors.
The same approach can be extended to make a powerful visual
gap analysis. Exhibit 15 uses a similar methodology to that of Exhibit
14, to represent the technical coverage of the reports published in a
“technology watch” activity. Each report can cover aspects of single or

Engineering Management Journal Vol. 22 No. 1 March 2010 71

Exhibit 14. Research Needs: Underpinning Technologies
multiple markets and technical areas. In this analysis the colors chosen
were denser shades of grey, tending to black for increased relevance.
The lowest areas of relevance are also blanked out. Using graphical
manipulation, Exhibit 15 can be overlaid onto Exhibit 14, resulting
in Exhibit 16, which provides a powerful visual identification of the
gaps in coverage of the technology-watch reports. In this particular
Exhibit 15. Research Needs: Underpinning Technologies
Exhibit 16. Gap Analysis
72
example, Exhibit 16 has been used to provide evidence for the choice
of future titles of technology-watch reports.
Providing a connection between data and conclusions is a
powerful feature of this approach to technology roadmapping, as it
opens the door to producing roadmaps that are both maintainable
and auditable. In the most extreme thought experiment, the data
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 22 No. 1 March 2010
used in the roadmap might be provided to an independent group,
to see if the same conclusions are made from the same data.
Discussion
Based on the experience described above, the following learning
points have been identified, to support the use of structure within
strategy workshops.
Roadmaps and other related structured frameworks can be
thought of as “strategic lenses” to enable individuals and groups
of people to understand and explore complex systems subject
to uncertainty and ambiguity, and to capture and communicate
their views and conclusions. Pursuing the lens metaphor, such
structures should be transparent and should not distort the object
being viewed, and should enable particular areas of interest to be
emphasized, as well as understanding the overall context of issues
being explored across the domain of interest (i.e. “zoom and
pan” functionality).
The structured frameworks described in Section 2 have these
characteristics, based largely on simple tabular formats, which
break down complex systems into themes and sub-themes, using
hierarchical taxonomies that enable a range of granularities to
be represented, providing a common visual language for diverse
groups of people to interact. If the structures deployed are
inappropriate in terms of language or complexity, then the “lens”
becomes opaque, obscuring the topic, confusing participants and
acting as a barrier to communication.
So, at a high level, the aim is to ensure that the structures used
are simple and easy to understand—when participants walk into
the room they should not be confused by overly complex charts,
but rather simple, natural frameworks within which they can see
their particular perspective represented, together with the other
themes that are important for understanding the whole system.
Workshop charts should be designed so that an appropriate
language is used, at an appropriate level of detail, allocating space
to represent the aspects of the system that are of most interest.
This design process needs to be considered carefully in advance
of the workshop, and should be a collaboration between the
“process owner” (facilitator) and “content owner” (sponsor),
tested through consultation with other experts to ensure that
the structures that are developed are carefully aligned with the
workshop aims and process.
The kinds of structures described in this article tend to have
rather simple tabular formats, which are relatively straightforward
to design, reflecting the key themes and perspectives associated
with the system being explored. Integrated strategy requires
the input of many perspectives, often associated with quite a
large group of people (15-25 is typical), who will have different
cognitive and communication needs and preferences. Simple
tabular structures, while somewhat bland, are easy to understand
and represent a safe option that few participants are likely to find
strongly objectionable, providing a visual checklist to enable
effective strategic dialogue. Generally it has been found that
participants appreciate an appropriate level of structure and
organization, and are willing to sacrifice a degree of personal
freedom if they can see that the process enables progress for the
group as a whole.
The use of simple workshop materials, such as wall
charts, forms, pens, and sticky notes, empower participants to
contribute their perspectives. Such strategic interactions are
prone to confusion, diversions, and potential conflict, due to
inherent complexities, uncertainties, and ambiguities. The use of
structured charts, combined with a series of simple and logical
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 22 No. 1
process steps (the workshop agenda), provides a framework
that enables participants to make progress, in order to achieve
the level of consensus necessary to move forward, without being
overly swayed by the strongly held opinions (and sometimes
prejudices) of individuals. Such techniques provide a great deal of
support to the facilitator, enabling small groups to largely manage
themselves, and the orchestration of productive activity in
larger groups.
The structure of the frameworks used should reflect the
logic of the process steps as far as possible, which will help the
participants understand what is desired, enabling them to work
together to achieve the desired outcome. The instructions provided
by the facilitator need to be clearly articulated, including the logic
behind the structures used, together with how the participants are
expected to interact with the structure. It is helpful to illustrate
what kind of information is expected to be captured, and to
demonstrate the process steps.
Embedding the right level of detail in the frameworks is an
important consideration during the design stage. The level of detail
depends on the nature of the system and issues being addressed.
Too much structure can be restrictive and confusing, while
insufficient structure provides too many degrees of freedom, and
can lead to chaos. As a general principle, less structure is desirable
for more exploratory, creative, and open-ended problems
Developing a simple structure that adequately represents
a complex system can be challenging, and several iterations are
typically necessary. Usually, the initial design must be considerably
simplified to focus on the most important issues if it is to work
well in a workshop environment, where time is always in
short supply.
The methods described in this article are designed to facilitate
consensus in large groups of participants, where it is essential
that key decisions are made about the way forward; however,
there is of course danger in consensus characterized by a “lowest
common denominator” result. Facilitators should be aware of this
danger, and should plan accordingly in terms of both structure
and workshop activities and ensure that all opinions are captured.
If space within the structure and activities is clearly identified to
enable alternative viewpoints to be expressed and considered,
then the risks of “group think” can be mitigated.
Conclusions
The methods described in the article have been designed to support
strategic dialogue in workshop environments, which represents
a considerable challenge in terms of the inherent complexity,
uncertainty, and ambiguity associated with strategy, and the need
to involve many stakeholders representing diverse perspectives. It
has been found that simple structures and workshop techniques
can provide an effective forum for such dialogue.
Historically, very simple materials have been used in such
workshops (paper wall charts, sticky notes, and pens). While
effective, such approaches also have significant drawbacks in terms
of the transcription, analysis, dissemination, and maintenance.
They are fairly static in nature, and do not take advantage of the
capabilities in information and communication technology that
are emerging. The two case examples described in this article
reflect an evolution in this regard. Strategic Appraisal deals
largely with paper-based methods, while Technology Foresight
describes a hybrid approach, that uses paper within the workshop
environment, but in a way that is compatible with the use of
software before and after the workshop, which can enable a more
dynamic approach to strategy development.
March 2010 73
 There are exciting new technologies being developed
that could enable paper-based systems to be supplemented or
replaced. Already there are electronic systems available that can
be used in workshops to facilitate brainstorming and organization
of information, including electronic whiteboards, although
the use of such technology needs careful experimentation, to
ensure that they help rather than hinder the human interaction
that is at the heart of strategy development. Developments in
technologies such as interactive walls and virtual environments
offer a tantalizing vision of what a workshop in the future might
look like.
References
Albright, Richard E., and Thomas A. Kappel, “Roadmapping in
the Corporation,” Research Technology Management, 42:2
(2003), pp. 31-40.
de Laat, B., and S. McKibbin, The Effectiveness of Technology Road
Mapping – Building a Strategic Vision, Dutch Ministry of
Economic Affairs, www.ez.nl (2003).
EIRMA, Technology Roadmapping: Delivering Business Vision,
European Industrial Research Association, Working Group
Report No. 52, Paris (1997).
Groenveld, Pieter, “Roadmapping Integrates Business and
Technology,” Research Technology Management, (Sept-Oct.
1997), pp. 48-55.
Kostoff, Ronald N., and Robert R. Schaller, “Science and
Ttechnology Roadmaps,” IEEE Transactions of Engineering
Management, 38:2 (2001), pp. 132-143.
Phaal, Robert, Clare J.P. Farrukh, and David R. Probert, T-Plan:
the Fast-Start to Technology Roadmapping - Planning Your
Route to Success, Institute for Manufacturing, University of
Cambridge (2001).
Phaal, Robert, Clare J.P. Farrukh, and David R. Probert,
“Customizing Roadmapping,” Research Technology
Management, 47:2 (2004a), pp. 26-37.
Phaal, Robert, Clare J.P. Farrukh, and David R. Probert,
“Collaborative Technology Roadmapping: Network
74
Development and Research Prioritization,” International
Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 1:1 (2004b),
pp. 39-55.
Phaal, Robert, Clare J.P. Farrukh, and David R. Probert, “Strategic
Roadmapping: a Workshop-Based Approach for dentifying
and Exploring Innovation Issues and Opportunities,”
Engineering Management Journal, 19:1 (2007), pp. 3-12.
Whalen, Philip J., “Strategic and Technology Planning on
a Roadmapping Foundation,” Research Technology
Management, (May-June 2007), pp. 40-51.
Willyard, C.H., and C.W. McClees, “Motorola’s Technology
Roadmapping Process,” Research Management, (Sept.-Oct.
1987), pp. 13-19.
About the Authors
Robert Phaal, PhD, joined the University of Cambridge
Centre for Technology Management in 1997, where he
conducts applied research in the area of strategic technology
management. This work has focused on supporting companies
to customize and initiate roadmapping processes. He has a
mechanical engineering background, and post-graduate
qualifications in applied and computational mechanics, with
industrial experience in technical research and software
development.
Paul J. Palmer is a Senior Research Fellow within the
Interconnection Group, and Director for the Electronics
Enabled Products KTN (formerly the PRIME Faraday
partnership) at Loughborough University. His industrial career
has been based in both electronic design and manufacture,
working for a number of companies including GEC, Plessey,
Hawker Siddeley and Molins. He ran a technical consultancy,
ITB, for four years before joining the PRIME Faraday
Partnership in 1998.
Contact: Dr. Robert Phaal, Institute for Manufacturing,
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Mill
Lane, CB2 1RX, Cambridge, UK; phone: +44 (0)1223 765824;
Fax: +44 (0)1223 766400; e-mail: rp108@cam.ac.uk
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 22 No. 1 March 2010
Copyright of Engineering Management Journal is the property of American Society for Engineering
Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.