CAETANO AMARAL 2011 Roadmapping for technology push

Prévia do material em texto

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Roadmapping for technology push and partnership: A contribution for open
innovation environments
Mauro Caetano n, Daniel C. Amaral
Federal University of Goias (UFG)/University of Sao Paulo (USP), S~ao Carlos School of Engineering (EESC) / USP - Avenida Trabalhador S ~ao-carlense, 400, CEP 13566-590,
S ~ao Carlos, S ~ao Paulo, Brazil
a r t i c l e i n f o
Available online 12 February 2011
Keywords:
Partnerships
Innovation
Integration strategy
Technology development
a b s t r a c t
There are several tools in the literature that support innovation in organizations. Some of the most cited
are the so-called technology roadmapping methods, also known as TRM. However, these methods are
designed primarily for organizations that adopt the market pull strategy of technology–product
integration. Organizations that adopt the technology push integration strategy are neglected in the
literature. Furthermore, with the advent of open innovation, it is possible to note the need to consider
the adoption of partnerships in the innovation process. Thus, this study proposes a method of
technology roadmapping, identified as method for technology push (MTP), applicable to organizations
that adopt the technology push integration strategy, such as SMEs and independent research centers in
an open-innovation environment. The method was developed through action-research and was
assessed from two analytical standpoints: externally, via a specific literature review on its theoretical
contributions, and internally, through the analysis of potential users’ perceptions on the feasibility of
applying MTP. The results indicate both the unique character of the method and its perceived
implementation feasibility. Future research is suggested in order to validate the method in different
types of organizations
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The technology roadmapping (TRM) is a method that helps
organizations plan their technologies by describing the path to be
followed in order to integrate a given technology into products
and services. These, in turn, reach the market and meet the
strategic objectives of the organization (Kostoff and Schaller,
2001; Phaal et al., 2004).
It is possible to find many proposals for TRM in the literature,
e.g., Albright and Kappel (2003), Daim and Oliver (2008), Holmes
and Ferrill (2005), Lee et al. (2009a), and, especially, the method
proposed by Phaal et al. (2001). These methods, empirically
attested by scientific research, assist in the planning of new
products and technologies.
When organizations plan their technologies, they may com-
bine two technology–product integration strategies: technology
push and market pull (Dodgson, 2000; Porter, 1985; Schumpeter,
1982). These integration strategies have a direct impact on
innovation management, as seen in the innovation model pre-
sented by Brem and Voigt (2009). However, their use is largely
linked to the organization characteristics (Pearson, 1990). In the
case of business organizations that sell products directly to
consumers, the market pull integration strategy predominates
because their aim is to improve existing product lines according
to consumer market trends.
Conversely, technology push predominates at some research
centers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) because
their focus is on their core competence. In these organizations,
such as independent research centers, government-run research
centers, and technology-based enterprises (TBEs) devoted to devel-
oping new technologies, the predominant integration strategy is
technology push. These organizations possess rare and exclusive
competencies and employ them to create and transfer innovations
to traditional enterprises in the form of consulting services,
licensing, and generation of spin-offs (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001;
Lee et al., 2007; Mohan and Rao, 2005, Spithoven et al., 2011).
Kappel (2001) and Rinne (2004) mention the importance of
taking integration strategies into account when performing TRM.
However, the roadmapping methods found in the literature were
created to suit the context of large corporations, which combine
R&D and product development structures, i.e., organizations that
mainly adopt the market pull strategy and closed innovation to
define technologies to be developed based on specific market needs.
These methods are applied to planning which involves the
R&D, marketing, and production sectors at the same organization,
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation
Technovation
0166-4972/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.01.005
n Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 (16) 3373 8289; fax: +55 (16) 3373 8235.
E-mail addresses: maurocaetano1912@gmail.com (M. Caetano),
amaral@sc.usp.br (D.C. Amaral).
Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335
Author's personal copy
which is not possible in the case of organizations that focus on the
technology push strategy, such as the aforementioned research
centers and SMEs.
The possible solution for these SMEs is the use of external
sources for technology mapping effort and making use of the open
innovation approach to absorb market and technology informa-
tion. Therefore, open innovation theory emerged from the same
source. According to Spithoven et al. (2011), this new paradigm
was ‘‘yoriginated from case studies in large R&D intensive
companies such as Xerox’’ (Spithoven et al., 2011, p. 133). The
concepts and tools following the big corporations point-of-view,
as TRM, and there is a lack of methods and guidelines that des-
cribe how these methods could be used by SMEs (Di Benedetto,
2010; Spithoven et al., 2011).
Gassmann et al. (2010, p. 219), in an editorial about open innova-
tion, adequately introduce the issue by affirming that ‘‘SMEs are the
largest number of companies in an economy, but they are under
researched in the open innovation literature.’’ The authors assert that
‘‘the operational functioning of open innovation depends on firms�
ability to manage decentralized innovation processes and often
includes participants who are not even on the company’s payroll.’’
The pioneer research about open innovation and SME�s, devel-
oped by Van de Vrande et al. (2009), identified open innovations
practices on Neetherlands SME�s and, more importantly, demon-
strated that they are increasing. The most important motive to
pursue these practices was the market-related ones according to
total of 605 respondents from SMEs. The Van de Vrande et al.
(2009) research is strong evidence that open innovation is an
important way to SMEs that have access to market information
and necessary technologies to combine with your own core
competence technology, in order to create value for customers.
The practical application of the open innovation approach on
SMEs starts with technology planning. Using the concept of open
innovation is possible to think about a method such as TRM,
specifically designed for SMEs and technology push environ-
ments. A method which information about associated technolo-
gies and market, required during mapping process, would be
obtained through a network of partners. This would providemechanisms to deal with the market information gap, identified
by Van de Vrande et al. (2009), and to absorb complementary
technologies, that SMEs needs to combine with their own core
technology to introduce them into products.
The TRM method, in this case, helps to expand the absorptive
capacity of SME�s, bringing benefit from open innovation paradigm, a
problem identified by Spithoven et al. (2011). In addition, the TRM
will serve as the support tool to the ‘‘external networking’’ open
innovation mechanism, as identified by Van de Vrande et al. (2009),
and an instrument for the co-innovation process, according to
Kohler et al. (2009) acceptation. Huizingh (2011) reinforced it by
suggesting that less resources to build and maintain collaborative
networks at the SME case. Finally, the TRM could facilitate informa-
tion exchange and increase the commitment of the SME partners on
open innovation, a major problem according to co-innovation case
study conducted by Müller-Seitz and Reger (2010).
The challenge is to establish a link between open innovation
framework and TRM methods, able to adapt TRM, enabling TRM
compliance to SMEs or research centers in an open innovation
environment. This relation is a research problem identified as
important by authors who are leading open innovation area of
knowledge as Lichtenthaler (2010), Huizingh (2011) and Badawy
(2011), justifying this paper.
The goal of this research is to contribute to the subject by
proposing a technology roadmapping method directed mainly to
SMEs and research centers that adopt the technology push
integration strategy and consider partnership planning in the
context of open innovation.
The research question is what adjustments are needed in
technology roadmapping to adapt it to the specific case of technol-
ogy push strategy and open innovation? The response was per-
formed using an action research, which was carried out at the
technology planning of an organization with the characteristics
mentioned. The result of the action was synthesized in an improved
method identified as method for technology push (MTP), that is a
roadmapping method for technology push innovation strategy and
open innovation environments. The changes in the script of TRM,
included in this method, and the discussions about it are the
contributions to the research problem.
2. Background
The first innovation models, back in the 1950s and 1960s,
already proposed a series of stages, with activities and decisions
needed for technology–product integration. These stages and
activities have been presented as two different sequences, known
as integration strategies.
Technology push is one of these integration strategies; its
activities focus on invention without concern to market attractive-
ness and applications of developed technologies to products. The
other integration strategy is known as market pull, in which market
needs to determine investments in the development of technologies
and their integration into previously determined products (Cooper
et al., 1998; Khilji et al., 2006; Pearson, 1990). Several studies
approach the conditions and characteristics needed to achieve better
integration of technology and product, which affect the use of these
strategies (Iansiti, 1998; Schulz et al., 2000; Drejer, 2002; Johansson
et al., 2006; Lakemond et al., 2007; Nobelius, 2004).
In their theoretical conceptual model for the front end of
innovation, Brem and Voigt (2009) assume that both strategies,
technology push and market pull, are equally important to all kinds
of organizations. They propose the creation of scenarios with experts
from different fields of expertize so that market needs, economic,
legal, and scientific issues, and others, are taken into account when
conceiving new products. This model assumes that neither strategy
is better and adopting a single strategy may undermine the
competitiveness of the organization on the long run.
Pearson (1990) proposes that the use of just one of the
integration strategies predominates in organizations. Those that
operate in established markets, offering a range of products and
services, favor the market pull strategy, e.g., multinational enter-
prises that concentrate their efforts on developing technologies
demanded by functionalities of pre-determined products.
The analysis of organizations that adopt the technology push
strategy indicates some common features, such as their person-
nel’s high level of initiative and creativity, their need to be always
ready to solve problems within their specificities, their enduring
efforts on basic and applied research, and their complex scientific
and technical expertize, acquired in the course of a long period of
time (Mohan and Rao, 2005).
These organizations do not usually have the structure needed
for product development, only for technology development,
which forces them to partner with other organizations to con-
clude the innovation cycle, i.e., to spread the newly developed
technology into products and services. A scenario that is coherent
with the open innovation movement.
Open innovation is defined as an approach that makes the
most of organization networks, such as customers, suppliers,
teaching institutions, and research institutes in order to increase
the innovation capability of an organization (Chesbrough, 2003a,
b). It is an approach that seeks the systematic adoption of
partnerships in the innovation process rather than resorting to
internal R&D structures as in the classic model of innovation.
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335 321
Author's personal copy
One result of open innovation is the appreciation of the role
played by technology-based SMEs and independent research
institutes, such as universities and government-run research
institutes, which apply the technology push integration strategy
to their innovation processes. These organizations have mastered
certain skills and constructed knowledge that can be applied to
broad classes of products, subsisting by spreading expertize to
enterprises that operate in mature markets, usually large enter-
prises or spin-offs, and are considered strategic partners in
innovation processes of enterprises that operate directly in the
market (Mention, 2011). Furthermore, the open innovation can
contribute to reconfiguration of business models and the forma-
tion of innovation networks among different partners distributed
along the supply chain (Badawy, 2011; Calia et al., 2007; Groen
and Linton, 2010; Linstone, 2010; Von Hippel, 2010).
Despite showing positive results in the innovation process of
organizations, open innovation also generates some negative
effects related to opportunity cost and feasibility (Müller-Seitz
and Reger, 2010). According to the studies of Praest Knudsen and
Bøtker Mortensen (2011), the product development projects can
be slower and have higher cost than the norm with increasing
degrees of openness. This appoints the needs of specified studies
like this about the partnerships on open innovation which can
contribute to solve these problems.
The partnership concept, originated in Japan and the United
States in the early 1980s, refers to the relationship between
distinct organizations so as to achieve mutual goals such as
reducing cost of operations, exchanging experiences, increasing
productivity, among others, in order to gain competitive advan-
tage for those involved (Naoum, 2003).
Thompson and Sanders (1998) conceived a typology for
relationships between two enterprises (A and B) that takes into
consideration the potential benefits deriving from the partnership
and the degree of alignment with their strategic goals, as shown
in Fig. 1.
According to the authors, when two organizations are in a
relationship in which there are different strategic goals, competi-
tion, conflict, and short-term negotiation focus, there is no
partnership, but competition, i.e., conflict of a win–lose nature.
As A and B come closer together a win–win relationship begins,
with improvedbenefits and alignment with their strategic goals,
characterized by cooperation and collaboration, up to a situation
of utmost closeness and coalescence, in which A and B merge into
a third organization (C) with distinct characteristics (Thompson
and Sanders, 1998).
Bianchi et al. (2011) present taxonomy for different types of
partners involved in the research development, production or
commercialization of products, but does not present the level of
partner involvement in the development process, as a collabora-
tor or just a cooperator.
Talay et al. (2009) classify partners according to the resources
shared in the partnership. Market partners are those who have
domain of distribution networks, advertising, and sales. Techno-
logical partners are those who may share resources such as know-
how and R&D expertize in a given area. Lastly, financial partners
are those who contribute resources, assets, and investments in
new projects.
Eng and Wong (2006) maintain that there are several factors
interfering with partnerships between organizations. There are
endogenous factors, e.g., confidence, commitment, reputation,
social norms, power, control, and dependency, and exogenous
factors, e.g., uncertainties, complexity, information asymmetry,
and opportunism. Among these factors, Bstieler (2006) as well
as Massey and Kyriazis (2007) believe that confidence is the main
factor in the maintenance of partnerships.
Despite wide coverage of these topics (Elmquist et al., 2009), the
literature is still lacking in methods and tools that can assist in the
prospection and analysis of potential partners in technology plan-
ning. This is a major challenge in the strengthening of open
innovation and the adoption of partnerships by organizations in
their technology roadmapping, according to Gassmann et al. (2010),
indicating the need for integration between decentralized develop-
ment theories and innovation methods and techniques.
3. Technology roadmapping and partnerships
In order to effectively integrate technology into product it is
fundamental that organizations adequately plan their technolo-
gies (Scott, 2001, 2005). Several tools may be employed to
support this planning, e.g., generic management models (Clark
and Wheelwright, 1993; Clausing, 1993; Cooper, 2006; Creveling
et al., 2003) or specific methods and tools (Phaal et al., 2001;
Khurana and Rosenthal, 1998; Lee et al., 2007). These are
proposals which are operationalized through the use of informa-
tion on both market and products, and technologies.
Among several proposals is the method known as technology
roadmapping (TRM) (Albright and Kappel, 2003; Kostoff and
Schaller, 2001). First records of roadmapping application to support
technology planning date back to the 1980s at Motorola, integrating
different organizational areas such as marketing, finances, manu-
facture, and R&D, among others. The main purpose was to align
markets, products, and technologies (Kappel, 2001; Rinne, 2004).
There are several examples of methods for technology road-
mapping in the literature (Daim and Oliver, 2008; Farrukh et al.,
2003; Gerdsri et al., 2009; Holmes and Ferrill, 2005; Lee et al.,
2007; Wells et al., 2004). T-Plan (Phaal et al., 2001) stands out
among them by presenting a systematic set of activities to be
performed in workshops over a very short period of time in the
organization, and has several applications already validated
(Phaal et al., 2006).
T-Plan (Phaal et al., 2001) and most roadmapping methods were
designed for enterprises that have R&D and product development
departments, usually large corporations, or small enterprises devel-
oping technologies to meet specific needs, identified in products and
services. In both cases, the market pull integration strategy pre-
dominates. Rodmapping is focused on predefined markets. More-
over, there is a glaring lack of proposals for a partner selection and
incorporation system in roadmapping; they may cite partners, but
do not advance any specific steps and tools in this direction. Further-
more, the analysis of the state of the art on open innovation,
Huizingh (2011) presents the challenge of integrating current
management practices and issues of open innovation.
P
ot
en
tia
l B
en
ef
its
 o
f P
ar
tn
er
in
g
Degree of Objectives Alignment
hgiHwoL
Lo
w
H
ig
h
Competition
Cooperation
Colaboration
Coalescence
Fig. 1. Types of relationships between organizations.
Source: Thompson and Sanders (1998)
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335322
Author's personal copy
One of the articles that approach the adoption of partnerships
with external stakeholders in TRM proposes devising a roadmap
that considers the possibilities of marketing the technology with
partners. The author focuses on the commercialization of a ready-
developed technology with partners. Although this application
comprises a technology push strategy (Nauda and Hall, 1991),
involvement of partners does not occur either in roadmapping or
in technology development, but in licensing, after the technology
has been developed.
With respect to T-Plan, Phaal et al. (2001) suggest looking for
partners in order to acquire certain necessary resources. However,
the authors do not specify how this search should be performed
nor taken into account the different types of partners and the
criteria needed for their selection and prioritization.
Table 1 summarizes the methods related to technology road-
mapping and adoption of partnerships, found on literature using a
systematic review.
In the study by Mcadam et al. (2008), which addresses the use
of partnerships in the development of new materials, the authors
propose to systematize the incorporation of partnerships into
technology planning from benchmarking, meetings with partners,
and the use of a portal of knowledge to define the necessary
expertize. However, the authors do not differentiate among types
of partners or present predefined criteria for their selection and
prioritization.
In addition, the literature lacks the TRM method for the
technology push integration strategy that can be originated from
just an idea or technologic opportunity. Although Kim et al.
(2009), Lee et al. (2007, 2009b), Lichtenthaler (2008), and Wells
et al. (2004) present their methods for this strategy, they use
roadmapping only to identify future programs, needed in a
certain sector, or to define applications of an existing technology.
Even though Kim et al. (2009), for instance, claim that their
method can be applied to this strategy, it is believed that it is in
fact another method for the market pull strategy, for guiding the
development of technologies to meet the needs of a predefined
market, i.e., construction. In the case of Lichtenthaler (2008), the
technology push orientation refers to the concept presented
by Nauda and Hall (1991) for a ready-developed technology.
These facts evidence the need to develop a roadmapping method
specific to the situation, which takes partnerships into account.
4. Methodology
An action-research design (Coughlan and Coghlan, 2002;
Ottosson, 2003) was conducted for the development of a method
(a roadmap) to perform the tecnhnology roadmapping in an
organization that predominantly employs the technology push
integration strategy. The action involved the method building and
Table 1
Considerations on studies related to technology roadmapping and adoption of partnerships.
Authors Adopted
integration
strategy
Description of application Considerations about
partnerships
Albright and Kappel
(2003)
Market pull Distributed in three sections: market, product, and technology,
market trends, competitors’ strategies, competitive products, and
technologies needed for these products are identified.
Roadmapping indicates
technologies that can be acquired
from the partners.
Daim and Oliver (2008) Market pull Roadmapping in four steps: planning and identifying the needs of the
energy sector, training for the preparation of roadmapping,
implementationby defining goals, and monitoring the roadmap.
Identifies organizations that
develop technologies in similar
areas.
Gerdsri et al. (2009) Not specified Roadmapping through the preparation of the organization,
identification of people to be involved and the necessary
information, and integration of the roadmap in planning business
activities, being constantly revised.
Involvement of key players in the
organization in roadmapping.
Holmes and Ferrill (2005) Market pull Implementation of operation and technology roadmapping (OTR) in
five modules: analysis of current technological situation and market
position, analysis of market requirements, conceptualization of
products and services, identification of technological solutions, and
drawing of the roadmap by integrating all these items.
Do not consider partnerships.
Kim et al. (2009) Technology push Roadmapping to identify development areas in building in the
Republic of Korea.
There were partnerships among
the interviewed organizations for
the construction of the roadmap.
Lee et al. (2009a) Market pull Use of a QFD matrix to identify gaps in the relationship between data
on the needs of consumers that use a given technology and engineers
that develop it, pointing out key elements for new competitive
technologies.
Do not consider partnerships.
Lee et al. (2007) Technology push Roadmapping divided into six stages: initiation, selection of topics to
be addressed, assessment of technology needs, preparation of
technology development plan, roadmapping implementation, and
roadmap updating.
Seeks to identify consortium
opportunities between enterprises
and research institutes.
Lee et al. (2009b) Technology push Roadmapping from analysis of patents to identify organizations that
can develop certain sub-technologies or products in the search for
new business opportunities.
The analysis of patents indicates
organizations that could become
partners.
Lichtenthaler (2008) Technology push Roadmapping taking into account the possibilities of
commercialization of ready-developed technologies with external
agents.
Seeks commercial partners for
licensing.
Mitchell and Nault
(2007)
Not specified They indicate that cooperative planning can reduce both
downstream as upstream rework on a project.
Interdepartmental partnerships.
Phaal et al. (2001) Market pull Workshops with multidisciplinary teams from business and
technical areas to roadmap products and technologies needed for
specific products and markets.
Adoption of partnerships to
provide certain resources.
Wells et al. (2004) Technology push
and Market pull
Roadmapping in two workshops: planning to identify the
participants’ interests through brainstorming techniques, relate
identified opportunities, and draw a roadmap.
Suggests the participation in
networks to carry out research
activities.
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335 323
Author's personal copy
the research was understood to the necessary changes at usual
TRM roadmapping well to these specific case.
The method was entitled MTP and it constitutes a monitored
sequence of events in an interactive cycle of data collection, feed-
back and analysis, action planning, and implementation aimed at
solving problems and contributing new knowledge to the field.
Action-research was adopted at this stage for two reasons:
(a) need for in-depth understanding of partnerships in the context
of planning for new technologies and (b) possible contribution of
existing theory and advancement in the proposition of a method
that supports the planning of technology.
Selection of the participant organization was intentional. The
criteria were that it possessed development activities for technol-
ogy only, not products; that it predominantly adopted the
technology push integration strategy in its technology–product
integration process; and, moreover, that it was interested in win–
win partnerships. A research laboratory (RL) was then identified,
part of a center specializing in the development of agricultural
technologies, belonging to a 40-year-old Brazilian research insti-
tution with representatives in all continents that actively partici-
pates in innovation processes of enterprises.
The study began with the formation of an action-research
team, consisting of members of the organization and research
group to which the authors belong. The first step was to make a
diagnosis of their management process of technology projects,
which pointed to RL’s characteristics and difficulties in integrating
their technologies into products of commercial interest.
The diagnosis also involved the analysis of two distinct
projects of technologies developed by RL, which had employed
both strategies, which enabled us to identify their main difficul-
ties in the innovation process. Among these difficulties was the
absence of more elaborate technology planning as they departed
directly from ideas to the development of technology projects,
which demonstrated the need to develop a method to support the
planning of these technologies.
The method development began with the application of road-
mapping to a technology that was in its final stages of develop-
ment at RL, i.e., the team would work on roadmapping this
technology parallel to structuring a script (MTP) to aid in the
roadmapping of other technologies at RL.
Altogether, it took about one year of intervention, completed
by the end 2009. Approximately, 400 h were spent in the action
research. At the end of the intervention of the field data, minutes
of meetings, artifacts and templates for documents and records
generated in minutes were synthesized on a roadmap for the
planning application in the organization.
The method was then evaluated by two different means: a
specific bibliographical review (Brereton et al., 2007), to compare
it to other proposals found in the literature, whose results are
presented in Table 14, Section 6.1, and an assessment of potential
users’ perceptions about its usability and feasibility.
The literature review was conducted in the ten leading
journals on technological innovation management, presented
by Linton (2006). We identified articles on roadmapping or
technology planning and partnerships published in the last seven
years. This time bracket was defined due to the increase in the
number of articles related to open innovation published since
2003, after the publication of Chesbrough’s (2003b) seminal
article. This time bracket is also corroborated by the work
of Elmquist et al. (2009) about publications on this theme.
The analysis of potential users’ perceptions about the method
as regards its usability and feasibility was required in order to
verify its internal legitimacy at the organization (Suchman, 1995),
which was carried out as field research at the same organization
where the action-research had been conducted (Dane, 1990). An
8 h course on the application of MTP was offered to 11 research-
ers belonging to RL, potential users of the method. At the end
of the course these professionals answered a questionnaire, with
the questions presented in Table 2, adapted and updated from the
questionnaire proposed by Farris et al. (2007), specific for the
assessment of methods and tools.
The questions presented in Table 2 had been adapted from the
maturity model of CMMI (2006) and the studies of James et al.
(1984, 1993). The 10-point Likert scale ranging from ’’strongly
disagree’’ (1) to ’’strongly agree’’ (10).
5. The proposed method: MTP
This section describes the method resulting from the action
research, called MTP. The flow shown is a result of the synthesis
performed by the action research team, employing the records of
field (the researcher’s notes, meeting minutes and templates of
documents generated during the studies). This flow is detailed in
a manual produced for the organization. The manual describes
the activities, organizational structure, and condition to apply the
method. The section presents the activitiesand steps used.
It was added only the details and passages that differentiate
the method from the traditional TRM methods such as T-Plan,
used as a basis for group action research. The flow presented does
not correspond closely to the flux used in the design of action
research that generated the method, for teaching purposes. This is
the flow presented in a manual used by the organization in
planning new projects.
MTP serves as a framework for the preparation of a technology
roadmap. This roadmap depicts a scenario for an idea of technol-
ogy or technological opportunity involving core and supplemen-
tary technologies, products, markets, resources, and partnerships
Table 2
Questions applied to the questionnaire.
No. Assessment item Rating scale
1 I understand the expectations that the organization has with respect to the use of the proposed method. 10 pt scale
2 The conditions of use, when and why to use the method, are clear. 10 pt scale
3 The method has been developed adequately to the needs of the organization. 10 pt scale
4 The method can be applied in the organization. 10 pt scale
5 The description of the method activities, documents, and decisions, is clear. 10 pt scale
6 The method can be monitored and controlled. 10 pt scale
7 The involvement of the general coordinator of the organization is proposed at the right time in the decision stages. 10 pt scale
8 Every person’s activities and responsibilities in the application of the tool are well defined. 10 pt scale
9 The number of people to apply the method in the organization is sufficient. 10 pt scale
10 The right people are suggested, both internally and externally, to participate in the implementation of the method. 10 pt scale
11 The information and documents in the proposed method are sufficient for its implementation. 10 pt scale
12 It is possible to involve partners in the implementation of the method. 10 pt scale
13 The participation of partners helps in applying the method. 10 pt scale
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335324
Author's personal copy
needed for its development. MTP activities (A), documents or
deliverables (D), and decisions constitute a continuous flow with
three distinct stages, as shown in Fig. 2.
Illustrative examples of the principal activities and deliver-
ables from these three stages are presented to show how the
method can work, but there is some data which cannot be shown
due to confidentiality of information from the organization
analyzed during the action-research.
5.1. Stage 1—market and market partners
The goal of Stage I of MTP is to prioritize markets to which to
apply the initial idea of the potential technology to be developed.
This initial idea consists of a technological solution that has been
mentally devised by the professional, but has not been developed
or tested. Fig. 3 presents the flowchart of this stage.
Based on an initial idea of technology to be developed, activity
A1 begins with the preparation of a roadmapping initialization
term. The first Delivery D1 contains initial information about the
project: project name; date of work begins; names of general
coordinator; project manager; and roadmapping team members
and their functions; and activities to be performed and those
responsible for them. This delivery serves as the roadmapping
initiation landmark. One example is presented in Table 3.
The document containing the initial idea of technology (D2)
provides a preview of possible functionalities and technological
applications of the idea under consideration. The higher the level
of detail, the better understanding by the roadmapping team
members.
D2 is accompanied by a history of technologies associated with
the initial idea (D3), which allows participants to understand the
development of related technologies and their trends, indicating
the marketing possibilities of similar technologies.
Fig. 2. MTP stages.
Initial 
technology 
idea.
Elaborate 
initialization 
term of 
mapping (A1).
Describe initial 
idea of 
technology 
(A2).
Identify 
potential 
markets and 
market partners
(A3).
Prioritize 
markets and 
partners 
(A4).
Mapping 
initialization 
term (D1).
Priority 
markets and 
partners
(D5).
Potential 
markets and 
market 
partners (D4).
History of 
technology 
associated 
with initial 
idea (D3).
Description of 
initial idea
(D2).
NO
YES
Stage II
Fig. 3. Stage I—market prioritization for an initial idea of market partners (MPs).
Table 3
Roadmapping initialization term.
Initialization term of mapping
Project name Futuretec Date work begins 01/01/2011
Project manager Ibrahim Iusi Naji
Stakeholders
Name Code Function
Pedro Cardinal PC General coordinator
Ibrahim Iusi Naji IN Project manager
Antônio Passos AP Facilitator
Lı́dia Taime LT Roadmapping team members
Alceu Dispor AD Roadmapping team members
Schedule
Activities Start Finish Responsible
Research and roadmapping structuring 01/01/2011 04/01/2011 IN, AP, LT, and AD
Activities coordination 01/01/2011 04/01/2011 PC and IN
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335 325
Author's personal copy
The identification of marketing possibilities of technologies is
based on results of a survey of potential markets. It should
provide data regarding their size, in terms of volume of business
generated during recent periods of time, and their expected
future growth (Cooper, 2008).
At the same time, future partners, known as market partners
(MPs), are also identified for each market. When gathering
information about market characteristics and sizes, participants
also identify players that distribute or develop products, do
trading, and can partner with the organization in the introduction
of the technology in the market.
This identification provides the opportunity of building part-
nerships at an early stage in the development of a technology.
Furthermore, provided that the partners are interested, it is
possible to involve them early in the roadmapping process
through the provision of market information, which is considered
as a stumbling block to organizations by using this method.
The combination of this information generates document D4,
containing potential markets and market partners in each one of
them, classified as collaborators (CLs) or cooperators (CPs),
according to Thompson and Sanders’ (1998) taxonomy, as exam-
ple shown in Table 4.
Once markets and potential MPs are identified, they must be
prioritized. Some suggested prioritization criteria are: market
size, growth expectations, alignment with strategies of organiza-
tion, and expectations of market partnerships. These criteria were
identified in the literature on innovation (Scott, 2005; Cooper,
2008; Chesbrough, 2003a). However, other criteria may be added
according to the needs of the organization.
Market sizes are assessed in local currency units (LCU). Values
from 1 to 5 are adopted to prioritize markets according to their
sizes, 1 being assigned to the smallest market and 5 to the largest.
Intermediate values are proportionally awarded.
This five-point scale was adopted in order to increase the
distance between the identified values because using a three-
point scale, as in T-Plan (Phaal et al., 2001), causes distant values
to come too near in this prioritization. Experience in action-
research has shown that a large scale, e.g., a ten-point scale, could
complicate the proportional distribution of grades for the identi-
fied values.
The expected future growth is analyzed in terms of percentage
of growth per annum (% p.a.). It adopts values from 1 to 5 for
growth potential. The lowest growth is assigned the Grade 1 and
the highest 5. The intermediate grades are distributed
proportionately.
The alignment of markets with the organization’s strategy is
assessed qualitatively through a scale. Value 1 is assigned to the
market that is farthest from and least interested in the organiza-
tion’s business strategy and 5 to the closest, proportionally
placing the remaining markets betweenthem.
The team search for criteria to assess the chances of partner-
ships occurring on partnership literature, background cited. The
list contains: confidence, non-competing goals, market expertize,
experience in cooperation, experience in innovation, familiarity in
terms of reputation and friendship, honesty, motivation and
interest in partnerships, and cultural compatibility. An example
is shown in Table 5. The assessment is made from the subjective
judging of roadmapping team members. As an example, the
confidence in the partner, which may vary from one, related to
low confidence in the partner, until five, related to the great trust
the partner in terms of joint activities undertaken in the past
or the reputation of the partner. See also Bstieler (2006),
Kalaignanam et al. (2007), Sherwood and Covin (2008).
The best score between the partners is adopted at the item
‘‘expectations of market partnerships’’ because this is the indi-
cator of the best possibility at the partner selection success.
Table 4
Potential markets and market partners.
Markets X Y Z Market
n
Market description Set of buyers with the
characteristic ’’X’’
Set of buyers with the
characteristic ‘‘Y’’
Set of buyers with the
characteristic ‘‘Z’’
Potential market partners and kind of
partnership
MP1—CL MP4—CL MP6—CL
MP2—CP MP5—CP
MP3—CL
Table 5
Assessment the chances of partnerships occurring.
Criteria Market\partner
X Y Z Market n
MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4 MP5 MP6 MPn
Confidence 5 4 1 2 3 4
Non-competing goals 2 5 1 1 1 1
Market expertize 2 5 3 5 2 2
Experience in cooperation 5 2 3 2 3 3
Experience in innovation 1 3 5 5 4 3
Familiarity in terms of reputation and friendship 3 5 1 1 5 2
Honesty 5 3 1 3 2 1
Motivation and interest in partnerships 5 1 2 1 2 1
Cultural compatibility 5 1 3 1 5 3
Total 33 29 20 21 27 20
Score (average) 3.67 3.22 2.22 2.33 3.00 2.22
Best score 3.67 3.00 2.22
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335326
Author's personal copy
To weigh the level of importance of the criteria used in market
prioritization, an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) matrix is
drawn, as presented by Saaty (2008) and presented in Table 6.
The values relating to the grades of the criteria are multiplied
by the weights corresponding to these criteria identified in the
AHP matrix and added up. The resulting value for each market is
then divided by the total sum of the weights, which generates a
score for each market, as shown in Table 7.
Delivery 5 (D5) containing the priority markets and their
corresponding MPs, is submitted to a decision group, which
may be composed by a general coordinator, backed by partners,
the top tier of the organization, and consultants and specialists,
who will decide whether to approve the prioritization. If it is
approved, Stage II follows, otherwise the process goes back and
the market prioritization criteria are reassessed.
5.2. Stage II—potential product concepts
The objective of Stage II of MTP is to identify and prioritize
concepts of possible products based on the market prioritized in
Stage I. They are product concepts because so far there is no
detailed description of their specifications, but only a preliminary
description. Fig. 4 shows the flowchart of Stage II, its activities,
generated documents, and decision.
Stage II begins with the thorough study of the priority market and
its segmentation (A5). The purpose of this study is to identify different
groups of potential consumers who can contribute to the idealization
of potential products. Market segments may be distinguished based
on diverse criteria: geographical localization (e.g., distance between
consumption and production, and easy access); extension (e.g.,
segment size); demography (e.g., sex, age, buying behavior, income,
education, and occupation); economy (e.g., main activity, sales, and
operation scale), among others. They are presented in Document D6,
which should contain data on the different segments.
A list of possible products (D7) for each segment is then
generated in Activity A6 from the identification of basic concepts
of new products that can receive the technology under idealiza-
tion. Table 8 presents an example of D7.
Parallel to the identification of potential products, the pre-
liminary performance dimensions of these products are also
identified. It consists of the preliminary identification of attri-
butes related to those products that have or may have some
importance for the consumers or business (D8). The team search
for dimensions on TRM and product development literature,
as Phaal, Farrukh and Probert (2001). Among several possible
dimensions of product performance are: consumption of natural
resources; emissions; size and weight; usable space/capability;
need for special care; energy efficiency; noise level; safety in use;
appearance; price/cost; and robustness. Technical visits, or the
use of other techniques for gathering requirements, are necessary
for the team to have a more concrete understanding of the
challenges faced by users of the products.
Then, there follows the activity of product description (A8),
which generates the Delivery 10 (D10), which relates the final
performance dimensions to the possible product concepts pre-
viously identified. To this end, it is necessary to consider the data
on products available on the market, similar to the products on
the list of potential products.
Activity 9 (A9) involves the identification of the financial
potential of a particular product, evaluating the estimated total
quantity of potential buyers and multiplying that amount by the
average value of a similar product on the market. Grades 1–5 are
assigned to the financial opportunity size, 1 being the smallest
Table 7
Score for each market.
Weigh X Y Z Market n
Market size 6 5 1 3
Expected future growth 4 2 5 1
Alignment of markets with the organization’s strategy 9 3 2 2
Expectations of market partnerships 5 3.67 3 2.89
Score 3.47 2.45 2.26
Table 6
Level of importance of the criteria used in market prioritization.
Market size
Expected 
future 
growth
Alignment of 
markets with 
the 
organization’s 
strategy
Expectations 
of market 
partnerships
Weigh
Market size 3 1 2 6
Expected 
future growth 1 1 2 4
Alignment of 
markets with 
the 
organization’s 
strategy
3 3 3 9
Expectations 
of market 
partnerships
2 2 1 5
Total 24
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335 327
Author's personal copy
opportunity and 5 the largest. Intermediate grades are assigned
proportionally.
Deliveries 9, 10, and 11 are used to prioritize products. This
may be accomplished by using the following criteria: compliance
to performance dimensions; size of financial opportunity of
similar products on the market, likelihood of product acceptance
by consumers, among several other criteria that can be defined by
the organization.
If more than one market segment has been identified, products
should be prioritized individually for each one of the segments.
Furthermore, it is also important to identify their level of compliance
to performance dimensions, which refers to how the product meets
the needs of the segment in terms of the performance dimensions is
identified. Grades 1–5 are assigned to the products. Grade 1 refers to
the lowest compliance to the performance dimension and 5 to the
highest compliance to the dimension.
Eq. (1), derived from this study, is employed to determine how
important a product is to the segment analyzed
Pr¼
Pd� DþPf � FþPa� A
Sweights
ð1Þ
where, Pr is the product grade; Px is the criterion weight; D is the
grade for product compliance to performance; F is the grade for
financial opportunity; and A is the grade for likelihood of
consumers’ acceptance of product.
The end result of Stage II constitutes a list of priority products
(D12) for each of the identified segments, which is subject to the
general coordinator and competent authorities’ approval. An
example to segment 1 is presented in Table 9.
In this case, the productpriority to carry on is the P1, which
receive the best score at this second stage, 2.71.
5.3. Stage III—technologies, technology and financial partners
The purpose of Stage III of MTP is to identify and prioritize
potential technologies to be developed from the product prior-
itized in the previous stage. This stage assists in the identification
of possible technology (TPs) and financial (FPs) partners, who may
be mobilized in the development of different technologies to be
prioritized. Fig. 5 shows the flowchart of Stage III containing its
activities, generated documents, and decision.
Table 8
List of possible products.
Product code Product name Product description Product representation
P1 Name for a possible product 1. Main features of the product 1. Illustration of the possible product 1.
P2 Name for a possible product 2. Main features of the product 2. Illustration of the possible product 2.
P3 Name for a possible product 3. Main features of the product 3. Illustration of the possible product 3.
P n
Table 9
List of priority products.
Weight P1 P2 P3 P n
Product compliance to performance 4 3.15 2.25 3
Financial opportunity 6 2 3 1
Likelihood of consumers’ acceptance of product 2 4 2 5
Score 2.71 2.58 2.33
Identify 
potential 
products and 
performance 
dimensions
(A6).
Make 
technical 
visits (A7).
Describe 
products
(A8).
Prioritize 
products
(A10).
Priority 
products 
(D12).
Product 
description
(D10).
Final 
performance 
dimensions
(D9).
Preliminary 
performance 
dimensions 
(D8).
List of 
potential 
products 
(D7).
Stage III
Priority 
market
NO
YES
Identify 
market 
segments 
(A5).
Market 
segments 
(D6).
Dimension of 
financial 
opportunity 
and product 
acceptance
(D11).
Dimension 
financial 
opportunity and 
product 
acceptance (A9).
Fig. 4. Stage II—identification and prioritization of potential products.
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335328
Author's personal copy
Stage III starts with A11, i.e., the identification of possible
technologies that must be developed so that the product prioritized
in the previous stage will reach the market and bear the technology
idea under development. The necessary technologies are defined
through the identification of this product features and functional-
ities that would only be possible with the development of specific
solutions, such as machinery or a set of specific skills and expertize.
This stage also aims at identifying possible organizations or
individuals that can be mobilized for either development or
delivery of the identified solutions, be they CLs or CPs.
The identified technologies are prioritized in order to make a
distinction between the technology related to the organization’s
core business and other supplementary technologies. To this end,
factors such as the technology alignment with the organization’s
strategy, the novelty degree of the technology, the possibility of
establishing technological partnerships, among others, should be
taken into consideration.
The core technology is that which has the strongest relation to
the organization’s competencies. In order to identify the core
technology, technologies are assigned grades from 1 to 5, 1 for the
technology displaying the weakest relation to the core compe-
tency of the organization and 5 the strongest. The core technology
is that which receives the highest grade under this criterion, as
shown in Table 10.
If there is more than one core technology, the decision group
may choose to develop one priority technology or all of them,
depending on the available resources. Or else, it may choose to
develop only one technology and reclassify the ones not selected
as supplementary, to be developed externally with the TPs.
The same principles conceived by the group should be
employed in the prioritization of technological partners, with
1–5 scales, as done in Stage I. The prioritization of TPs should take
into account various criteria such as confidence, non-competing
goals, technological expertize, experience in collaboration, inno-
vation expertize, familiarity in terms of reputation and friendship,
honesty, motivation and interest in the partnership, and cultural
compatibility. Value 1 is to be assigned to the lowest qualification
as regards these attributes and 5 to the highest, individually
analyzing partners under these criteria and obtaining the average
in relation to the number of criteria.
Table 10
Relation to the organization’s competencies.
Criteria Technology A Technology B Technology C Technology n
Relation to the core competency of the organization 5 3 2
Strategic interest of the organization 4 3 1
Organization’s experience with this kind of project 3 4 4
Criteria n
Score 4 3.33 2.33
Identify potential
technologies and
technological partners
(A11). Prioritize 
technologies 
and partners
(A12).List of 
potential 
technologies 
and partners
(D13).
Priority
product. List of 
priority 
technologies
(D14).
NO
YES
Roadmap of 
idea and 
partners (D16).
Identify and 
prioritize 
financial 
partners
(A13).
Priority 
technology 
and partners
(D15).
Draw map 
(A14).
Fig. 5. Stage III—identification and prioritization of potential technologies, and technological and financial partners.
Table 11
Technology prioritization.
Criteria Weight Tec. A Tec. B Tec. C Tec. n
Technology alignment with the organization’s strategy 5 3.4 3.1 2.8
Novelty degree of the technology 3 3 3 2
Possibility of establishing technological partnerships 4 3.6 3.5 2.7
Criteria n
Score 3.36 3.20 2.56
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335 329
Author's personal copy
It is now the time to organize the prioritization criteria into a
hierarchy, by employing the AHP matrix to identify the weights of
the criteria identified. The final prioritization of TPs takes into
account the criteria and corresponding weights. Table 11 presents
an example of technology prioritization.
In possession of the list of priority technologies (D14), A13 is
performed to identify and prioritize possible FPs for these technolo-
gies, classifying them as CLs, e.g., those who finance technology
projects, or CPs, those who can only provide secondary resources to
maintain structures or activities essential to the development of
technologies, as shown in Table 12.
Some criteria may be used to identify the likelihood of
mobilizing FPs in a potential technology development project.
Confidence, non-competing goals, capacity to pay, experience in
collaboration, innovation expertize, familiarity in terms of repu-
tation and friendship, honesty, motivation and interest in the
partnership ,and cultural compatibility are suggested criteria in
this prioritization, according to the literature review. Value 1 is
assigned to the least qualified under these criteria and 5 to the
highest qualification, individually analyzing partners based on
these criteria.
Delivery 15 (D15), presented in Table 13, containing a list of
technologies, TPs, and FPs, is submitted to the general coordinator or
decision committee for final approval. If this relationship is not
approved, the criteria should be reassessed; otherwise, A14 follows,
i.e., the drawing of the final roadmap, which constitutes D16.
Technologies B and C have no financial partner for not having
been classified as core technology to the organization and do not
do not require financial partners directly.
The results of the tables and analysis performed in each step
are summarized in the roadmap. The activity was carried out by
three team members of action research, two of the research group
and one of the organization studied. They analyzed the various
outcomes and, using post-its, they create a map similar to Fig. 6,
which was presented and discussed at a workshop for 8 h with
the other members of the organization.
The final roadmap, as shown in Fig. 6, containing the market to
be tapped, product to be developed, core and supplementary
technologies to be developed, necessary resources andpartners to
be mobilized, is made available to the whole team in order to
Table 12
Possible FPs to Technology A.
Financial partners to Technology A
Partner Partner code Kind of partnership
Financial partners 1 FP1 CL
Financial partners 2 FP2 CL
Financial partners 3 FP3 CO
Financial partners n
Table 13
List of technologies, TPs and FPs.
Criteria Tec. A Tec. B Tec. C Tec. n
Score 3.36 3.20 2.56
Possible technology partners TP1 TP1 TP2 TP3
TP2 TP4
TP4
Possible financial partners PF1 – –
PF3
P1
Market X
(Segment 1)
TP3
TP1 MP2
TP2FP1 TP4
Expertise X Expertise Y Expertise Z
FP3
MP1
Fig. 6. Roadmap for the initial idea (D16).
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335330
Author's personal copy
guide them in planning the technology and managing the rela-
tionship between the partners.
The action-research team took into account the research on the
subject and created this method. But is MTP really innovative when
compared to the other proposed methods in the literature? Thus
begins a new research stage to evaluate the proposed method.
6. Results
The method resulting from the action-research, i.e., MTP,
consists of a management innovation as such. Birkinshaw et al.
(2008) indicate that this type of innovation has to prove its
effectiveness from two analytical perspectives: internally, by
professionals who use the method, and externally through the
state of the art. The authors argue that for this kind of innovation
only the external analysis is not sufficient to prove its effective-
ness as it is fundamental that a management method or tool be
legitimized by its users, because otherwise there is no way it can
be effectively employed in organizations. To this end, we sought
the internal legitimacy of the method via consulting with its
potential users (Suchman, 1995).
A first step towards the external legitimization of MTP was taken
through the analysis of its theoretical contribution, i.e., by finding
out whether it is really unique and relevant to the state of the art.
On the other hand, the internal legitimacy of MTP was sought by
assessing the method feasibility among its potential users.
6.1. Analysis of theoretical contribution
To determine the contribution of MTP a systematic and
specific literature review was carried out to identify technology
roadmapping methods over the past seven years, since the advent
of open innovation, in addition to classical and known methods,
such as those presented by Albright and Kappel (2003) and Phaal
et al. (2001). These methods were compared to MTP in order to
identify distinguishing and common features of the proposed
method.
There were identified several studies on technology road-
mapping methods, such as those described by Daim and Oliver
(2008), Gerdsri et al. (2009), Holmes and Ferrill (2005), Lee et al.
(2007), and Lichtenthaler (2008), among many others, which
demonstrate positive outcomes for the development of technol-
ogies of commercial interest through roadmapping.
Also in relation to the adoption of partnerships to promote
innovation, the literature presents a broad discussion on the
theme, such as in Emden et al. (2006), Mishra and Shah (2009),
and, considering only publications on open innovation, in
Elmquist et al. (2009). Therefore, it is well known that the
literature acknowledges the benefits of both topics to innovation.
Table 14 presents a summary of the analysis. Most works on
technology roadmapping strategy address the market pull
technology–product integration strategy. These works focus
mainly on market needs. Although studies by Kim et al.
(2009), Lee et al. (2007), Lichtenthaler (2008), and Wells et al.
(2004) address the technology push integration strategy, it was
noted that they employ it to identify future technological needs of
the market by means of technology prospection (Balaguer et al.,
2007) or to define applications for ready-developed technologies,
using the technology push concept presented by Nauda and
Hall (1991).
MTP is technology push strategy based and adopts the concept
proposed by Mohan and Rao (2005), in which technologies are
derived from a scientific orientation. The contribution, however,
is to demonstrate that organizations can use the method to plan
the partners and to analyze it more deeply, simultaneously they
can search for external supplementary competencies.
With respect to partnerships, there are studies suggesting the
involvement of partners in technology roadmapping, such as
those by Gerdsri et al. (2009), Phaal et al. (2001), and Wells
et al. (2004), as well as authors that propose the identification of
partners, such as Daim and Oliver (2008), Lee et al. (2009b),
and Lichtenthaler (2008). None of them have a system for the
identification, selection, prioritization, and incorporation of part-
ners into roadmapping or take into account the different types of
partners to be identified.
Lichtenthaler (2008) presents the roadmapping proposal that
most closely matches MTP. The author shows the importance of
the subject and describes the case of a large chemical company
that developed a roadmap to identify the technologies that were
Table 14
Comparison between the methods found at literature and MTP.
Authors Adopted
integration
strategy
Identified gaps
Albright and Kappel (2003) Market pull Do not show how to incorporate partners in technology development.
Daim and Oliver (2008) Market pull Does not systematize the search, selection, and incorporation of partners.
Gerdsri et al. (2009) Not specified Takes into account only the organization’s internal staff and does not see external agents as potential
partners.
Holmes and Ferrill (2005) Market pull Do not address the adoption of partnerships.
Kim et al. (2009) Technology push Do not show how partners are selected in the development of roadmapped technologies.
Lee et al. (2009a) Market pull Do not consider external agents as partners.
Lee et al. (2007) Technology push Do not show how partners are included in the development of roadmapped technologies.
Lee et al. (2009b) Technology push Applicable to ready-developed technologies. Does not systematize the inclusion of potential partners.
Lichtenthaler (2008) Technology push Partners for licensing of ready-developed technologies.
Lichtenthaler (2010) Not specified The focus is the ‘‘Keep or Sell’’ decision. Does not systematize the inclusion of potential partners.
Mitchell and Nault (2007) Not specified Take only internal cooperation into account.
Phaal et al. (2001) Market pull Does not present a systematic or criteria for selecting partners. It also does not classify the different types
of partners.
Wells et al. (2004) Technology push
and market pull
Does not show how to participate in research networks. For the technology push strategy, products are
defined for ready-developed technologies.
Roadmapping in three stages with activities to identify and prioritize markets for a given idea of
technology and market partners, products, and technologies, technological and financial partners.
MTP Technology push Systematization in the adoption of partnerships according to necessary resources.
Weakness. Need for multiple applications for its statistical validation.
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335 331
Author's personal copy
developed internally and externally. However, partnerships are
employed only after the technology has been developed, i.e., it seeks
partnerships only to market a ready-developed technology.
Lichtenthaler (2008) also does not address the issue of partnership
in depth, demonstrating steps and means to incorporate the process
of the TRM.
6.2. Perceptions of MTP usability and feasibility
To check the perceived usability and feasibility of applying
MTP under real-life conditions, we carried out a field survey at the
same organization that participated in the action-research, i.e., RL.
To this end, we conducted a course on the method with 15
researchers, corresponding to almost the entire team that worksdirectly in technology research and development at RL. At the end
of the course, they answered a structured questionnaire on the
feasibility of applying MTP.
The course was held at the organization over a period of 8 h
during one day. It comprised topics related to product and
technology definition, as well as the steps for implementing
MTP and characteristics relating to its activities, documents, and
decisions. The printed version of a manual describing the method
was available to participants.
At the end of the course, a questionnaire containing 13
questions was responded by the 11 RL researchers that attended
the course. In order to structure the questionnaire, an instrument
adapted from Farris et al. (2007) was employed. Because it was
based on an older version of CMMI, from 2001, it was necessary to
upgrade this tool according to the newest CMMI version (CMMI,
2006), considering the first level of maturity.
For the analysis of the responses, we employed the method of
analysis proposed by James et al. (1984, 1993), as suggested by
Farris et al. (2007), which uses an index to measure the level of
agreement among judges on an issue. In order to be applied, the
method must satisfy three conditions, according to James et al.
(1984, 1993):
(1) the issues should be the same among interviewees;
(2) there must be a discrete scale common to all interviewees; and
(3) interviewees should interpret the scale in the same way.
Conditions 1 and 2 were guaranteed by the use of three identical
questionnaires and Condition 3 by conducting the course. The
number of respondents (i.e., 11) appears to be sufficient for the
application of a questionnaire as the one in question, for its analysis
is based not only on individual responses to a question, but also on
the level of agreement, which makes the method robust for small
numbers of respondents (James et al., 1984).
Each of the 13 questions had a 10-point Likert scale, ranging
from ’’strongly disagree’’ (1) to ’’strongly agree’’ (10). The
responses were analyzed to identify statistical indices that could
assist in the identification of possible applications of the method
in real-life conditions.
The analysis of responses, according to James et al. (1984,
1993), was performed from the variance index (sx2), shown in
Eq. (2), which is the expected variance due to purely random
error.
s2x ¼
A2�1
12
ð2Þ
From the variance indexes and standard deviations (Sx) of the
responses, it is possible to identify the interrater agreement
within group (rwg), according to Eq. (3) (James et al., 1993), which
measures how common a given response is to a group of
interviewees, showing whether there is a consensus among the
group for a given statement.
rwg ¼ 1�
S2x
s2x
� �
ð3Þ
The interrater agreement for the statement in Question X lies
between 0 and 1. The closer to this interrater is 0, there is more
disagreement among the group members concerning the state-
ment. On the other hand, the closer to 1 the more the group
agrees about the statement. The fact that the questionnaire was
the same for all respondents and was applied after the demon-
stration of MTP during the course, Conditions 1, 2, and 3 for the
use of the method were met.
The results of the analysis of the questionnaire responses given
by the RL researchers are presented in Table 15, which also shows
the average of responses (mx) along with the other indices.
The analysis of Table 15 allows some considerations based on the
responses of the interviewees. On the whole, the data demonstrate
the feasibility of applying the method perceived by its potential
users since the averages presented high values, and the standard
deviation showed low indices. However, certain question, e.g.,
Questions 4, 6, 9, 12, and 13, deserve careful consideration.
In Question 4, concerning the possibility of implementing MTP
at the organization, although the average grade was high, i.e.,
8.82, there was low agreement among respondents on this
question, 0.57. Some interviewees pointed to the unlikelihood of
the method operators being able to perform multiple tasks, such
as conducting research related to MTP (e.g., technology and
market investigations) simultaneously to pursuing their research
interests at RL. This is relevant insofar as the probable MTP
operators at RL will be researchers, who do both basic and applied
research and often teach at the undergraduate or postgraduate
Table 15
Statistical analysis of perceived feasibility of MTP.
No. Questions lx Sx rwg
1 I understand the expectations that the organization has with respect to the use of the proposed method. 9.27 1.01 0.88
2 The conditions of use, when and why to use the method, are clear. 8.64 1.29 0.80
3 The method has been developed adequately to the needs of the organization. 9.00 1.25 0.81
4 The method can be applied in the organization. 8.82 1.89 0.57
5 The description of the method activities, documents, and decisions, is clear. 9.82 0.40 0.98
6 The method can be monitored and controlled. 9.82 0.40 0.98
7 The involvement of the general coordinator of the organization is proposed at the right time in the decision stages. 9.45 1.51 0.72
8 Every person’s activities and responsibilities in the application of the tool are well defined. 9.55 1.04 0.87
9 The number of people to apply the method in the organization is sufficient. 6.91 2.77 0.07
10 The right people are suggested, both internally and externally, to participate in the implementation of the method. 8.91 1.45 0.75
11 The information and documents in the proposed method are sufficient for its implementation. 9.36 0.81 0.92
12 It is possible to involve partners in the implementation of the method. 8.09 1.92 0.55
13 The participation of partners helps in applying the method. 10.00 0.00 1.00
Source: research data.
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335332
Author's personal copy
level. The suggestion to overcome this difficulty was to constitute
a support group that could assist in information seeking and
implementing the method.
Question 6 presented one of the highest levels of agreement
among the respondents and is related to monitoring and control-
ling MTP application (mx¼9.82 and rwg¼0.98). This is due to the
structure of the stages presented, documents, and decisions,
which promotes the monitoring of the roadmapping activities.
Although Question 9 had an average of 6.91, there was
significant disagreement (rwg¼0.07) as regards the number of
people available in the organization to implement MTP. It is
believed that this divergence occurred because of the low market
expertize expressed by some members of the group as well as the
probable overload caused by the roadmapping activities if carried
out by a small number of professionals. Solutions to this difficulty
could be to distribute the activities among the roadmapping team
members during meetings, balancing the roadmapping work, and
also to resort to partners to gather information on markets and
technologies, as they are in constant contact with the market
and have strategic information about customer behavior, market
trends, and technology, valuable to roadmapping. Another solu-
tion would be to establish a support group to perform market
intelligence activities to inform decisions during roadmapping.
In spite its effectiveness in the implementation of MTP, the
possibility of involving partners presented a satisfactory average
(mx¼8.09), but showed a high level of disagreement among the
group members (rwg¼0.55) in Question 12. According to the group
members, this happened because of different interpretations of the
legal criteria of the organization for the establishment of partner-
ships. It is believed that once MTP has been implemented and long-
term partnerships established, with pre-determined and described
duties and rights, this issue may be resolved and it will be possible
to involve many partners in future roadmapping processes as well
as in the development of other priority technologies.
Question 13, about the contributionsof partners’ participation in
the implementation of MTP, showed the highest average and the
best interrater agreement in the interviews (10 and 1, respectively).
These values were achieved based on the value accrued to the
roadmapping process by partners providing the organization with
data on markets, products, and technologies as well as technical and
financial support to potential projects to be developed. It is believed
that the consensus achieved by the interviewees around Question
13 is not only due to the fact that RL does not develop products and
therefore needs partners with this expertize, but also because of the
difficulty found by most organizations in pursuing innovations
relying on internal resources alone, which leads them to resort to
open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003a).
Some questions, such as those concerning the availability of
people in the organization to implement the method and the
possibility of involving partners in roadmapping, were not consen-
sual, constituting a potential stumbling block for some respondents.
When interested in the results of roadmapping or in the technolo-
gies to be developed, partners who do not develop technology may
share product or market information as well as allocate some of
their employees’ working hours to implementing MTP.
These data indicate that potential MTP users perceived its
implementation to be feasible, yet it is believed that as a higher
level of knowledge about the method application is acquired by
the group over time, the roadmapping team’s work will be
optimized and become increasingly refined.
7. Limitations and managerial implications
MTP describes a viable option of technology roadmapping
from ideas of new technologies in a technology push strategy of
technology–product integration. As previously discussed, there is
no specific script for this purpose in the literature, which
evidences its contribution to researchers and managers in orga-
nizations that have such needs.
Some features of MTP set it apart from other methods
presented in the literature, such as the identification of supple-
mentary technologies that should be developed with partners
parallel to the organization’s core technology. This allows the
development of different technologies by the identified organiza-
tions to be subsequently integrated into products, thereby
expanding the benefits of integration to partner organizations.
The advantage of MTP is the fact that the organization may
roadmap a simple idea of technology to be developed, regardless
of previous market or product demand. This feature allows MTP
to be used by managers in organizations that have a predominant
technology push strategy of technology–product integration.
While intensifying their research and improving their expertize
in a certain area of knowledge, these organizations may also
concentrate their efforts on developing technologies that can be
marketed and generate benefits for consumers and the
organization alike.
It is believed that the use of MTP may also, along with the
portfolio management and product platform (Lara and Cheng,
2009), contribute to the development of new products.
The establishment of partnerships also comes as a major
advantage of MTP as it generates in the organization opportu-
nities to share efforts on developing technologies with pre-
determined integration. The resources invested in the innovation
process can be supplemented by various organizations.
The establishment of market partnerships is recommended for
the organization to gather market information and opportunities
for the development of products, technology partnerships to
develop supplementary technologies, and financial partnerships
to raise capital needed to carry out R&D activities. The establish-
ment of partnerships contributes to solving one of the main
difficulties in this type of organization, i.e., how to direct their
efforts to developing technologies that can be effectively inte-
grated into marketable products.
After applying MTP, RL may begin to plan activities for their
priority technologies, conducting business meetings with identi-
fied partners in order to establish partnerships for the develop-
ment of prioritized technologies and products.
The readers can therefore choose to use the roadmap as
described in the article, or use it as a basis for improvement of
methods and procedures already used at TRM. This means
identifying the differences for the standard TRM and improves
it. In this case, the article describes in detail the major changes:
the introduction of step description of technology and stages of
partners evaluation systematically.
As aforementioned, a major difficulty encountered in the tech-
nology push integration strategy is related to obtaining information
on markets and products when the organization is not structured to
develop products. MTP can help solve this problem because its use
allows the early inclusion of partners in the innovation process,
during roadmapping, thus bringing the market information sources
to the organization early in the process.
The identification of this major problem and identify a path to
their solution is the main contribution of this article. The action
research conducted serves as a base for scholars and practitioners
of the area who can move forward in resolving this issue.
8. Conclusions
As stated by Birkinshaw et al. (2008), a management innova-
tion is not made in a short period of time. It is necessary to
M. Caetano, D.C. Amaral / Technovation 31 (2011) 320–335 333
Author's personal copy
identify the problem with the existent theory and methods, to
examine cases in depth to understand all aspects of the problem,
propose solutions, to spread the change to a range of organiza-
tions and only then, after several years of implementation, it is
possible way to prove the external validity of the procedure. The
method of TRM is already well studied in literature and can be
considered mature and well validated. The article identifies a
particular problem in the method, describes an opportunity to fix
it, based on partnership and literature describes the development
and implementation of a new practice to solve the problem.
Two limitations are identified at this method. First, the
practice has been validated only in terms of internal organization
where the research took place. Second, the validation involved
two aspects: the verification of the differential against existing
theory and verification of internal change agents. She did not
evaluate the proposal from the perspective of the impact on
organizational performance.
Thus, the main limitation of this research is the fact that this
cycle is not complete. It is necessary to apply the method in other
organizations and conduct assessments of the impact of practice
on performance and innovation time and resources invested in
planning (TRM).
Although the feasibility of applying MTP, as perceived by its
users, has been shown, we suggest that future research be con-
ducted with the full implementation of the method at different
organizations in different industrial sectors. This will be funda-
mental to complete the external validation of the method and to
obtain data that can demonstrate its potential benefits, as described
in this article. The research group will continue with these efforts.
The merit of the work in this case is that the description of the
proposed practice can serve as a beginning for these applications. It
is suggested that other researchers to test and develop the practice
tests and evaluations for the continuity of the solution identified.
The research group of which the authors belong is already
conducting two applications of the method. One for a new
software technology for the testing of fruit at a distance and
another for a research program on micro-harvests (planting of
fruit in small, controlled environments such as homes) in the
same organization studied. The next step the group will take the
roadmap for other organizations, technology-based