An industrial technology roadmap for supporting public … · 2016-07-20 · An industrial technology roadmap for supporting public R&D planning ... Seoul National University of Science

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

An industrial technology roadmap for supporting public R&D planning

Yonghee Cho a,⁎, Seong-Pil Yoon b, Karp-Soo Kim c

a Department of Engineering and Technology Management, Portland State University, OR 97207, USAb Graduate School of Energy and Environment, Seoul National University of Science & Technology, 232 Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, South Koreac Graduate School of Innovation and Technology Management, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology(KAIST), 373-1 Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, South Korea

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y. Cho), ysphil@

[email protected] (K.-S. Kim).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.0060040-1625/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 17 August 2015Received in revised form 24 February 2016Accepted 10 March 2016Available online xxxx

Technology roadmap is one of the useful tools for managing R&D planning as well as identifying the future oftechnological progress at firms, various levels of government agencies, and other organizations. This studypresents an industrial technology roadmapping process for use in public R&D programs, affecting firms' strategicbehavior under this umbrella. The primary purpose of this paper is to address evolutionary aspects of industrialtechnology roadmap for the South Korea case and provide a more advanced framework of public R&D planning.Since 2000, technology roadmapping has been initiated by the government agency in South Korea, and, morerecently, this practice has become popularized in small- and medium-sized companies as well. Despite the pop-ularity, practitioners have some difficulties in finding practical guidelines and systematic processes for develop-ing technology roadmaps applicable to R&D planning within an organization. The framework of industrialtechnology roadmapping developed by the Korea Institute for the Advancement of Technology can be appliedormodified to the R&D planning process of similar projects. This roadmapping process deals with a variety of in-dustries with different characteristics, and provides a systematic mechanism to predict future market demandsand technology innovations. Finally, this paper shed some lights on the major challenges, potential roadblocksand proposed recommendations in roadmapping process.

© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Technology roadmappingTechnology forecastingIndustrial technology roadmapR&D planning

1. Introduction

Technology forecasting is valuable in the aspect to give guidance forthe direction of promising technology development. The value of tech-nology forecasting lies in its usefulness for making better decisions,not in its coming true (Martino, 1993; Isenson, 1966). Technology fore-casting is, in other words, typically approximations of the future andcannot include all exact future forms (Isenson, 1966). Technology fore-casting strives not only to identify research and knowledge gaps inorder to find the right path to reach goals, but also in order to searchranges of the environment that will be encountered in the future.

Technology forecasting attempts to reveal a specific characteristic oran attribute of technology over a designated time. JosephMartino definestechnology forecasting as “a prediction of the future characteristics of use-ful machines, procedures or techniques” (Martino, 1993). During the1950s and 1960s, technology forecasting (TF) was mainly driven by mil-itary competitionwith the Soviet Union (Coates et al., 2001; Porter, 1999).TF was initiated primarily as a tool to help anticipate military technologyneeds and to help plan and prioritize R&D and system development(Porter, 1999). Hal Linstone pointed out that technology forecasting(TF) seems to have peaked around 1970with a decline inmethodological

kiat.or.kr (S.-P. Yoon),

advances thereafter (Coates et al., 2001). In historical perspective, the useof TF methods is summarized in Fig. 1.

On the other hand, since 1960's, long-range planning has beenincreasingly used by corporate management due to the increased com-petition among firms, speed of technological change, and fast advance-ment in information technology (Payne, 1971; Fulmer and Rue, 1974).Erich Jantsch and Robert Ayres Erich in the last half of the 1960'sdescribed that the company started to focus on the integration of tech-nological forecasting with long-range planning, and the implications fororganization structure and operations (Bright, 1968; Ayres, 1969).Environmental scanning element stands at the juncture of forecast-ing, foresight, and strategy (Martino, 2003; Donald, 1981; Faheyet al., 1981; Slaughter, 1999; Beat, 2000). The corporate communityhas focused its efforts on environmental scanning such as bibliometric/patent trend analysis (Martino, 2003; Porter and Detampel, 1995) andmarket analysis to identify increasingly diversified needs of customers(Fahey et al., 1981), in order to establish a solid grasp of technology ini-tiatives as well as to improve its future position. In addition, a companyshould set up its R&D strategy in alignment with its business strategysuch asmanufacturing, sales andmarketing, personnel, finance, and ac-counting. Many organizations have investigated major breakthroughtechnologies, core technology improvements, and state-of-the-art de-fining technologies. A technology forecasting tool for decision-makingis needed to predict future technology trends now more than everbefore.

Fig. 1. The chronological tree of technology forecasting techniques.Source: modified from (Cho, 2013).

2 Y. Cho et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

A variety of technology forecasting methods have been introducedand applied to various technologies, business units, industries, and or-ganizations by diverse purposes. But in the last four decades, especially

Table 1Technology forecasting techniques.

Approach Techniques

Environmental scanning -Bibliometric analysis-Patent landscape analysis, patent alert system, and fuzzy-basclustering-Data mining, text mining, database tomography, and tech. m

Stochastic forecasting -Probabilistic trends and time lagsTrend extrapolation -Multiple regression, multivariate regression, etc.Growth curves (S-curves) -Pearl, logistics, gompertz fisher-pry, bass diffusion model, an

cycle analysisTime series analysis -AR, MA, ARIMAMeasure of technology -Scoring model and technology frontierModeling and simulation -System dynamics and agent-based modelsExpert judgmentalforecasting

-Delphi, survey, FGI, role playing, AHP, analogy model, scenarioplanning, technology roadmapping, etc.

Normative method -Relevance tree, morphological analysis, backcasting, and missflow diagram

after thewidespread availability of information technology, some of theapproaches using much information like patents, journals, researchawards, business press, newspaper, and internet social media, have

References

ed

ining

Porter and Detampel (1995), Dereli and Durmusoglu (2009a, 2009b),Millett and Honton (1991), de S. Price (1965) Callon et al. (1979), Ellis et al.(1978), Callon (1986), Frawley et al. (1991), Kostoff (1991), Kostoff (1994)Feldman and Dagan (1995), Cunningham et al. (2006)Martino (2003)Martino (1993), Lenz (1962)

d life Martino (1993), Robertson (1923)

Millett and Honton (1991), Lenz (1962), Bradfield et al. (2005)(Martino, 1993; Souder, 1972; Anderson et al., 2001)Millett and Honton (1991), Luna-Reyes and Andersen (2003)Martino (1993), Martino (2003), Lenz (1962), Martino (1999), T. F. A. M. W.Group (2004), Daim et al. (2006), Huss and Honton (1987), Saaty (1980),Saaty (1977), Kappel (2001)

ion Martino (1993), Jantsch (1967), Wissema (1976), Robinson (1982), Quistand Vergragt (2003)

3Y. Cho et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

been continuously developed by different researchers combining withmany other tools. A number of technology forecasting methods aresummarized at Table 1.

2. Literature review

Technology roadmapping is an effective tool for technology planningand communicationwhichfitswithin a broader set of business planning(Bray and Garcia, 1997; Phaal et al., 2001; Kappel, 2001; Cosner et al.,2007). Technology roadmaps in the corporate setting are used to definethe plan for the evolution of a product, linking business strategy to theevolution of the product features and costs to the technologies neededto achieve the strategic objective (Albright and Kappel, 2003). Theremust be a linkage between the technology investment decisions andthe business requirements (Garcia and Bray, 1997). Roadmapping is im-plemented to develop a stronger awareness of how to serve potentialand current markets with the right product features at the right timeand to improve the cross-functional cooperation required for integrat-ing technology, product andmarket drivers for newproduct and servicecreation in terms of customer requirements (Groenveld, 1997). A firmmust generate an effective technology plan aligning with a businessplan in order to identify and develop the technologies required tomeet its customer's future needs.

Technology roadmapping was first used by Corning andMotorola todevelop a corporate and business strategy in the late 1970s (Probert andRadnor, 2003; Phaal et al., 2005). In 1984 Motorola first published itsown product technology roadmap as a planning tool to better positionitself and its product in the market, with the communication betweendesign and development engineers and marketing personnel, in orderto forecast technologies which will be required in future products(Harring, 1984). Motorola's roadmap is an example of a single-layerroadmap, focusing on the technological evolution associated with aproduct and its features (Willyard and McClees, 1987). Since TRM's in-ception more than four decades ago, technology roadmapping has pro-vided a readily implementable tool to align technology strategy withbusiness strategy, providing a structured framework to address threekey questions with respect to future direction of a firm, its current posi-tion in the market, and setting its target (Phaal and Muller, 2009). Overthe years, technology roadmapping has gained significant acceptancewithin corporations (Albright and Kappel, 2003; Groenveld, 1997;Willyard and McClees, 1987; Barker and Smith, 1995). Furthermore,the TRMmethod has been used as a ‘Top Down’ planning tool across in-dustries (Baldi, 1996; Jager-Waldau, 2004; Harrell et al., 1996; Garcia,1997) and national foresights (Saritas and Oner, 2004) by providingspecific directions which industry and society should move forward.For example, many industry roadmaps such as Semiconductor, Alumi-num, Chemistry, Mining, and Metal Casting have been developed byeach industry assocation under the sponsorship of Department ofEnergy's Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT). Specifically, since1992, International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS),expanded internationally from previous National Technology Roadmapfor Semiconductors (NTRS), driven by the Semiconductor Industry As-sociation has been a well-known industrial roadmapping practice forsemiconductor industry (Harrell et al., 1996; Arden, 2003; Mccarthy,2003). In addition, in 1995 Industry Canada launched the TechnologyRoadmapping Initiative as part of its strategic plan to support Canadianinnovation (Canada Industry, 2000).

The overall frameworks of roadmapping seem alike between corpo-rate and industry roadmaps, but differ in some ways. With respect toprocedures, scope, resources, and time spending, industry roadmaprequiresmuchmore than the corporate one.While corporate roadmapstarget a particular technology and product, industrial roadmaps some-times deal with wider R&D issues associated with high-level of emerg-ing technology and product trends in the industry.

Despite its popularity, practical guidelines and systematic processesto be known are limited to develop and implement tangible R&Dplan in

the roadmaps. The reason for this limitation is not because of the pro-cesses of technology roadmapping that are so complex, but because itrequires considerable levels of details and resources in strategic R&Dplanning for new products and innovations. To fill this gap, Garcia andBray provided outlines of three phases for developing technologyroadmap but with little information on the case (Garcia and Bray,1997; Garcia, 1997). Over a decade, Phaal and Probert et al. have madeefforts to develop technology roadmapping process, so called ‘T-Plan’,for providing the practical support for industry community in U.K. andEU (Phaal and Farrukh, 2000; Phaal et al., 2004a, 2005, 2004b; Phaaland Muller, 2009). Kappel pointed out that technology roadmap haslimited insights into disruptive change due to the linear tendency of it(Kappel, 2001). In response, Walsh and Linton discussed the transitionfrom sustaining to disruptive technologies in roadmapping (Lintonand Walsh, 2004), and Walsh introduced the second generationroadmapping process to incorporate emerging and disruptive tech-nologies in 2004 (Walsh, 2004). Walsh divides generations basedon the nature of technology associated with roadmapping process.Recently, Tierney, Hermina, and Walsh suggested the third generationroadmapping process, namely technology landscapping, for new phar-maceutical innovations (Tierney et al., 2013). In this article, the firstand second generation roadmapping domains are mainly discussedbased on the South Korea case. The development of roadmapping hasbeen largely driven by companies, government agencies, and consultingfirms (Phaal and Muller, 2009). In addition, there have been variousstudies to broaden the application of TRM in other strategic planning,due to easily modifiable structure of TRM (Hamilton, 1997) (seeTable 2).

3. Method

The case study method is our preferred method for investigatingevents that are occurring in a contemporary context (Yin, 2013). Casestudy is an empirical investigation based on knowledge and experience(Yin, 1981). According to the descriptive and explanatory nature of thisstudy, we also employed a case study tool to address the evolution ofparticular aspects of industrial technology roadmap for the SouthKorea case and provide a more advanced framework of public R&Dplanning. The case study focused on industrial technology roadmappingproject.

For the South Korea case, most government R&D programs are de-signed to take place infirms, academia, and government-funded nation-al laboratories. Small- and medium-sized firms are proactively engagedin government R&D projects to acquire R&D funding to develop theirtechnologies and products. In such a context, technology roadmappingprovides a decision-making tool to allocate public R&D funding. Thispaper proposes evolutionary roadmapping processes to effectively im-plement public R&D planning. These processes mainly, developed bythe Korea Institute for the Advancement of Technology (KIAT), are ex-pected to provide a strategic decision-making tool to effectively helpimprove the overall R&D performance and quality in public R&D invest-ment when completed.

4. Case analysis

4.1. The evolutionary learning process of industrial technologyroadmapping

Quinn described that formal planning should be a part of the incre-mental process (Quinn, 1982). Roadmapping process tends to evolveas internal decisions and external events that flow together to developa new, widely shared roadmap for action among key stakeholders. Theemphasis of evolutionary learning on technology roadmapping makesit suitable for dynamic, complicated, or uncertain contexts (Gregoryet al., 2005) where the opportunities for technology developmentare moving targets that must be achieved by certain time frames.

Table 2The applications of technology roadmapping.

TRM applications Characteristics References

Incorporated into disruptivetechnology

• Identify potential disruptive technologies and products explainingthat the roadmapping process for disruptive technology is differentfrom that of sustaining technology.

Walsh (2004), Kostoff (2004), Vojak and Chambers (2004), Walshet al. (2005), Strauss et al. (1998), Gerdsri and Kocaoglu (2007),Linton and Walsh (2004)

Incorporated into emergingtechnology or industry

• Identify and select emerging technologies for business benefit.• Capture dynamics of emerging paths and emerging research domains.

Holmes and Ferrill (2005), Robinson and Propp (2008), Martin andEggink (2008), Kajikawa et al. (2008), Phaal et al. (2011)

Incorporated into supplychain management

• Reduce investment uncertainty through shared information withinan integrated supply chain.

Petrick (2002); Petrick and Echols (2004); Fine (2002); Jeon et al.(2011)

Incorporate service strategy • Integrate more sophisticated service functions to the conventionalproducts and systems, bridging gaps in service operations.

Kameoka et al. (2006), Fleury et al. (2006), Bitran and Gurumurthi(2004), Suh and Park (2009), An et al. (2008), Geum et al. (2011),Martin and Daim (2012), Harmon and Laird (2012), Lee et al. (2013)

Incorporated into newproduct development

• Propose a heuristic approach by combining technologyroadmapping, information technology (IT), portfolio management,and supply chain management in order to make more sustainablenew product development decisions.

Harring (1984), Albright and Kappel (2003), Groenveld (1997),Farrukh et al. (2003), Petrick and Echols (2004), Yoon et al. (2008),Oliveira and Rozenfeld (2010)

Integrated with scenarioplanning

• Combine scenario planning with technology roadmapping to mitigatelimitations that both have, generate multi-scenario roadmapping.

Van Tuyle et al. (2001), Strauss and Radnor (2004), Pagani (2009),Damrongchai et al. (2010), Saritas and Aylen (2010), Geum et al.(2014), Lee et al. (2015), Zhang et al. (2015)

Incorporated into thebusiness model

• Combine business modelling with strategic roadmapping method tocreate new business value.

Jovane et al. (2003), Abe et al. (2006), Abe et al. (2008), Abe et al.(2009), Cowan and Daim (2012)

Incorporated into economicvalue

• Bring together various perspectives relevant to the valuation andevaluation of individual projects.

Dissel et al. (2006)

Incorporated into knowledgemanagement

• Deal with knowledge management actions concerning businessobjectives and strategies as well as specific knowledge assets.

Macintosh et al. (1998), Selen (2000), Brown and O'Hare (2001),Lytras et al. (2005), Ma et al. (2006)

Incorporated into innovationpolicy

• Analyze the dynamics between innovation policy and industrialgrowth for new industries.

Cowan and Daim (2012), Zhou et al. (2013)

4 Y. Cho et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

Roadmapping facilitates the process of a collective learning and aknowledge creation (Routley et al., 2013). Consequently, the technologyroadmapping practices within industry organizations across many sec-tors are evolutionary learning processes, instead of developing themperfectly overnight. As illustrated in Fig. 2, technology roadmapping isa iterative process as a role of long-term planning.

The roadmapping practices in government agency in South Koreadate back to September 2000. Korea Institute of Industrial TechnologyEvaluation and Planning (ITEP) under the leadership of the Ministry ofTrade, Industry, and Energy (MOTIE) initiated a project to develop in-dustrial technology roadmapping. Thereafter, since 2001, Korea Indus-trial Technology Foundation (KOTEF) took up the role of it and hadbeen trying to establish the process of creating industrial technologyroadmaps annually for about four years. Each incremental change ofprocess added up. Subsequently, the management system of industrialtechnology roadmapping has been established. Technology planning isa deliberate and delicate task requiring a scientific and methodologicaldesign.

The evolutionary phases of industrial TRM can fall into two parts.The first phase of TRM is illustrated in Table 3. At this phase, the frame-work of industrial TRM has been tested, stabilized and expanded to theintegration of other methodologies and cooperation with other organi-zations. It has dealt with other crucial subject matters such as interna-tional cooperation, R&D infrastructure, intellectual property rights(IPRs), standards, and regional innovation policy. At the fifth stage ofthis first phase, industrial TRM is used as a strategic planning tool toforecast future needs and develop future vision in 2015, especially de-rived from new emerging technology development from 19 differentsectors.

Industrial TRM has played a compass role in technology planning incomplex and turbulent environments. It was finally utilized as an effec-tive tool for helping the government allocate R&D resources efficiently

Fig. 2. Steps of the evolutio

and for participants to share the information and promote cooperativeresearch among them. Industrial TRM aims to support industry and awider community of technologymanagement by providing focused do-mains for practical R&D and a forum to promote productive discussionsamong industry-academic-national laboratory entities.

Roadmapping committees are staffed by amixture of different back-grounds from industry, government, and academia. For example, fromApril 2006 to February 2007, about 522 experts from industries, acade-mia and research institutes helped create industrial technologyroadmaps in 19 sectors. Industrial TRM in 19 domains was open to thepublic in March 2007; nine of these areas were considered as key fieldsin the economic growth of South Korea. Among them, seven areas wererelated to the main industries of South Korea, such as semiconductor,automotive, etc.; the others related to the future strategic industrieslike nano-technology, bio-technology and cognitive robotics. In 2007 in-dustrial TRMand future vision 2015 proposedmodels of the future of 19different sectors in 2015, eliciting practical application tools and tech-nologies inspired by themegatrends of our society such as globalization,multi-polar economies, climate change, socio-demographic change,changing customer needs and new emerging technologies in global sur-roundings. Not only did this forecasting supports technology strategyand planning at the national level, but it linked market opportunitiesto product and technology developments at the firm level.

The second phase of industrial TRM is addressed in Table 4. At thisphase, industrial TRM is more associated with specific R&D programsor projects, providing a framework for R&D planning and coordinatingR&D efforts with operational requirements. The second phase alsocalls for a development plan to meet future needs and addresses thetechnological gaps and opportunities identified in the process.

Industrial TRM has been evolved and finally employed as a decisionmaking tool to support public R&D planning and technology forecasting.It helps to forecast technology and industry trends based on expert

nary process of TRM.

Table 3The first phase of industrial TRM 2000–2007.

Stage Time period Processes Characteristics Targeted areas

1st 2000.9–2001.8 • Design the framework of industrial technologyroadmapping.

• Peer review• Use TRM as a reference for public R&Dfunding

6 Subjects; personal robotics, optical fiber, battery,etc.

2nd 2001.7–2002.6 • Improve planning methods with portfolioanalysis, etc.

6 Subjects; multimedia, ship building, medicalengineering, etc.

3rd 2003.6–2004.6 • Incorporate technology tree technique.• Cooperate with each industry association.

12 Subjects; SoC semiconductor, fuel cell battery,etc.

4th 2004.10–2005.9 • Integrate R&D planning with R&D Infrastructures• Forecast technology using patent data mining.• Suggest the linkage industrial TRM with specific public R&D program.

5 Subjects; next gen. display, advanced battery, etc.

5th 2006.4–2007.2 • Integrate R&D planning with international cooperation, standards, intellectual propertyrights (IPRs), R&D infrastructures, and regional innovation system.

• Expand TRM to 19 major industries.• Establish a vision for each industry.

19 Subjects; future vehicle, smart textile,NT-convergence, etc.

5Y. Cho et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

decisions aswell as quantitative data such asmarket trend data, patents,and literature.

4.2. Findings: how the framework of industrial TRM developed

The framework of industrial TRMhas been evolved and stabilized fora decade and finally designed to support overall and specific R&D pro-grams. Industrial TRM requires a lot of effort to determine industryand technology areas to focus on. Technology roadmapping is used asa market-need-driven R&D planning process to help identify, select,and develop technology alternatives that satisfy a set of productneeds. Identifying emerging technologies and setting R&D developmenttargets in each technology area requires more sophisticated tools suchas comparative analysis, gap analysis, portfolio analysis, bibliometrics,patent data mining, Delphi, and expert decisions.

As illustrated in Fig. 3, in order to fulfill R&D planning, social, techno-logical, economic, environmental, and political (STEEP) trends andneeds should be investigated along with the evaluation of current tech-nology capabilities over its competitorsworldwide in eachfield, becauseindustrial technology roadmap aims to ensure an industry's future com-petitiveness. After going through a process funnel, stakeholders canidentify both target products and technologies to focus on. Consequent-ly, each industry has reached a strategic juncturewith respect to seekingout new and emerging products/technologies or acquiring new skills.

The initial design of industrial technology roadmapping processmainly referred to previous reports (Garcia, 1997; Dixon, 2001). Overa decade, the framework of industrial TRM, however, has been tailoredto fit the administrative circumstance in South Korea, and evolved toresolve new challenges encountered. Due to different administrativestructures and cultures of nations, the roadmapping process varies be-tween countries. Table 5 compares industrial TRM process to industryroadmaps in the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. Department of Energy(DOE) proposed a four-step roadmapping process, which may breakdown into three phases of the roadmapping. The process of industrialTRM consists of three stages: a preparation, roadmapping, and a

Table 4The second phase of industrial TRM 2008–2011.

Stage Time Period Processes

6th 2008.4–2008.8• Establish R&D planning with specific public R&D progr• Set R&D target and specification.

7th 2009.4–2009.9• Develop Maps for Advanced Era (MAE) system.• Forecast emerging technology using data mining tool i

8th 2010.6–2010.12• Advance MAE system and online roadmapping.• Provide comprehensive market, patent, industry data.• Integrate R&D target and specification with specific R&

9th 2011.5–2011.12• Keep MAE system alive.• Integrate R&D target and specification with R&D progr• Expand TRM to all major 35 industries in South Korea.

follow-up. This process in detail appears to be similar to IndustryCanada case.

The overall process of industrial technology roadmapping is de-scribed in Fig. 4. At each stage, a review committee audited research re-sults and gave verification of the results through a series of workshops,and public hearings occasionally with various experts and interestgroups to ensure the balance of expertise and viewpoints.

5. Preparation stage

At this stage, decision-makers discuss and come to a consensus re-garding areas that TRMs are necessary in order to resolve current issuesthat the society faces. Consensus is very crucial to maintain the TRMprocess.

5.1. Preliminary planning

Determining relevant areas and methodologies requires significanteffort in TRM project management. A TRM team is formed, the frame-work of TRM is designed, and a roadmapping schedule is organized.After the discussion on the methods used in technology roadmapping,a series of peer reviews and the Delphi method are typically selected.This process is performed through a survey of thousands of experts,consensus-building among the external advisory group, and consultingwith related government officials. It is typical for the set-up of theframework of industrial TRM to take over 10 internal team meetings.

To create industrial TRMs, KIAT organizes a committee with variousexperts from academia, firms, government, and national research labs.Establishing a committee is one of the most significant elements forthe successful execution of industrial TRM, since future demands, targetproducts, and emerging technologies can only be identified through dis-cussion among them due to extremely high uncertainty. Therefore, asteering committee, operational committee, and supporting groupshould be carefully selected in each technology field for the TRM pro-cess. Above all, an industry must play a proactive role in the industrialTRM process, in order for the process to be industry-led process as

Targeted Areas

am.19 Subjects; semiconductor, display, medical devices, etc.

n patent, literature.26 Subjects; LED, BcN, home networking, U-computing, etc.

D program.31 Subjects; plant/engineering, smart-grid, robotics, etc.

am in 2012. 35 Subjects; next gen. display, advanced battery, etc.

Fig. 3. The overall process of planning in TRM.

6 Y. Cho et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

well as to take into account the interactions of consumers and suppliers.Finally, such issues inherent in a peer-review system – like the “oldboys” network, the protection of established fields, and the leniencyeffect – should be eliminated.

a. Select subjects of TRM.b. Identify major experts in each area.c. Determine decision criteria and clarify a roadmap procedure.d. Select a committee.e. Plan a cooperation with industry associations to lead roadmapping.f. Plan a workshop for roadmapping in each sector.

Table 5Comparison of roadmapping procedures between roadmaps.Source: (Garcia, 1997; Canada Industry, 2000; Dixon, 2001).

3 Phases 4 Phases Activities

Preliminary Roadmap initiation Commission a sector study of the targeteSatisfy essential conditions; needs-drivenProvide leadership/sponsorship; Industryand establish subcommittees and workinDefine a vision for the industry.Define the scope and boundaries for the tDesign roadmap project and products.Project the time and finances required to

Development of thetechnology roadmap

Technical needsassessment

Establish statements of the purpose and gDefine the industry and the needs of its cthe future customer demands.Develop system flowsheets and functionsIdentify the “product” that will be the focBaseline analysis and end state analysis.Identify technical risks and opportunitiesIdentify the critical system requirementscapabilities and gaps.Specify the major technology areas.Specify when the technology will be needcustomer demands.Specify the technology drivers and their t

Technical responsedevelopment

Identify technology alternatives and theischedule.Recommend the technology alternativesneeds and responses.Define what skills and knowledge that threquire developing and implementing thCreate the technology roadmap report.

Follow-up Roadmapimplementation

Critique, review, and validate the roadmaSeek feedback from all the participants.Develop an implementation plan.Review and update.

6. Roadmapping stage

This stage includes roadmapping activities associatedwith industrialTRMs.

a. Confirm necessary information with respect to TRM.b. Open a workshop for roadmapping in each field.

• 50% of participants should come from industry.• All interested groups (academia, research institute, consumer, andfirm) should be involved.

Sandia NationalLaboratories

IndustryCanada

U.S.DOE

IndustrialTRM

d industry. X X, industry participations. X X X Xestablish a steering committeeg groups.

X X X X

X Xechnology roadmap. X X X X

X Xcomplete the roadmap. X Xoals of the technology roadmap. Xustomers at a particular point in

X X

. Xus of the roadmap. X X X

X. X Xand their targets/identify

X X X X

X X X Xed if the industry is to meet future

X

argets. X X Xr time lines/develop integrated X X X X

that should be pursued/prioritizeX X X X

e industry's future work force wille new technologies.

X

X X X Xp. X X X X

X XX X X XX X X X

Fig. 4. The overview of industrial TRM procedure.

7Y. Cho et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

• All participants must have expertise about the selected area so thatthey may contribute to the workshop.

c. Identify megatrends/industry and market trends with SWOTanalysis and value chain analysis.

d. Identify the critical system requirements and their targets/identi-fy capabilities and gaps.

e. Link core technology with products to identify the product thatwill be the focus of the roadmap.

f. Specify the technology drivers and their targets with technologytree technique.

g. Analyze the IP trends associated with targeted technologies.h. Prioritize technology alternatives that should be pursued using

portfolio analysis.i. Specify technology alternatives and their time lines.j. Create micro and macro roadmaps.k. Consolidate all roadmaps and set visions based on various

scenarios.l. Sum up workshop reports.

m. Establish subcommittee to prepare the first draft of TRM.n. Develop the first draft roadmap.o. Take a feedback after circulating the first draft roadmap.p. Consolidate TRM with additional evaluations and comments

from industry.q. Establish and execute attainable plans.

In addition, there are seven major steps of workshops (not includedabove) such as providing blueprints of technology development, allo-cating public R&D investment with the assistance of experts, andknowledge clustering. Furthermore, there are typically two or threesmall group meetings between each of the seven steps of workshops.

6.1. Visioning and integration workshop

The TRM project management team must create the models of thefuture through workshops, even though it is recommended that the vi-sioning and integration workshops should be comprised of the CEO,technology forecasting expert, and a developer of a long-term vision.Models of the future vision should be developedwith the aid of a work-ing committee, via internet and relevant forecasting sources like “thepicture of future” from Siemens, in order to safeguard against any vul-nerabilities due to the lack of experience or expertise of selectedtechnologies.

6.2. Portfolio analysis

Technology areas are determined by the following criteria alongwith the help of experts:

• Can they make commercialized products that meet the future needs?• Can they gain access to a niche market?• Can they achieve world-class competitiveness in a short time?

While TRM presents a series of milestones to attain the object oftechnology development, the portfolio analysis clearly proposes the pri-orities of investment related to various technologies identified by TRM.Decision criteria include global market size, strategic importance, mar-ket and technology trends, technology importance, relative technologyposition, potential competitive advantage, and synergy effects on the in-dustries and the economy.Market and technology portfolio analyses areconducted.

For example, for technology portfolio analysis, the X-axis indicatesthe technological maturity which depends on the possibility of taking

Fig. 5. Quadrants of portfolio analysis and examples.

8 Y. Cho et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

out a patent and the degree of concentration of core technologies. It isaffected by the investment plan and outcome relevant to a specific tech-nology.Meanwhile, the Y-axis indicates the technological importance ofthe innovation (i.e., the relative potential in creating value and thevalue-added level of a specific technology). It is mainly affected by thecurrent status of relevant technologies in a technological life cycle. Thebest decision for each domain of the technical portfolio is illustrated inFig. 5.

6.3. Final report of TRM

With the submission of the final reports from eachworking commit-tee, the TRM project management team critically analyzes them andsynthesizes a report, which includes the review of the process, a sum-mary of each working committee report in a coherent format, as wellas the analysis of findings and recommendations of the external experts.

Included in the final report are roadmaps from the various industryassociations as well as internal management team. The industrialroadmaps allow firms, academia, industrial consortia, and governmentsto:

• Create relationships between their own planning and roadmap ofinterest.

• Monitor industry trend.• Determine prioritization.• Explore the dynamic linkages among the changing environment,organizational strategies, and technological resources.

• Improve market trend analysis.• Identify opportunities and threats facing their businesses.

Technology roadmapping processes might be different according tofacilitators or depending on the nature of industry and technology. Insome cases, specific steps are often omitted or added to a new stage.

6.4. Follow-up stage

TRM should be reviewed and updated periodically in order to keep italive. A follow-up step should reevaluate, update, and create feasibleplanswith respect to all post-TRMactivities. This procedure is inevitablyrequired but generally quite a bit difficult to implement.

7. Findings: the organizational perspective on industrial TRM

Effectively organizing expert committees is one of the significant el-ements for high-quality TRM, because TRM highly depends upon thequality of expert committees. As a result, it is very important that theTRM team selects appropriate experts in a committee: a competent per-son fromeach relevant association, research institute, andfirm. Further-more, the quality of TRM depends on the facilitator's management skillof the committee. Committee experts should have knowledge and expe-rience in technology roadmapping. They should be skilled in leadingpeople in a committee. It would be helpful if they have prior experiencein technology roadmapping.

'A committee structure has been established to manage theroadmapping process and workshops. In implementing an industrialTRM, there are various sub-groups that must interact, such as a steeringcommittee, working committee, policy council, IP analysis team, and re-view panel, as Fig. 6 illustrates. It requires the advanced managementskill of a number of work packages such as communication, interaction,and cooperation.

7.1. Steering committee

A “steering committee (SC)” serves as a final decision maker in theTRM process. It consists of about 20 experts; in which about 12 mem-bers come from an industry, six members have interdisciplinary back-grounds such as economics or management, a government official,

Fig. 6. The structure of expert committees of industrial TRM.

9Y. Cho et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

and a director from the MOTIE. The committee prioritizes industry sec-tors or technology domains to be focused on and gives some advice onthe overall technology roadmapping. From our extensive experience,the appropriate size of the SC would be around 9–13 for a high-qualityTRM.

7.2. Working committee

A “working committee (WC)” plays a major role in technologyroadmapping, prioritizing candidate items through portfolio analysis,selecting criteria such as global market size and strategic importance,investigating market and technology trends, identifying potential com-petitive advantage, and determining synergy effects on both the overalleconomy and each relevant industry. The WC identifies core technolo-gies and products from subcommittees in every target domain and de-velops the TRM. Three or four subcommittees are required to dealwith much more concrete R&D planning in the WC. The output of thesubcommittee is finally reviewed by the chairperson of the WC. Halfof the WC comes from each relevant industry, four members from aca-demia, three members from research institute, a government official, afacilitator from KIAT, etc. In total, it consists of about 17 experts. A gov-ernment employee in theWC usually serves as an observer rather thanas a secretary for the group. In addition, relevant associations shouldtake part in the WC, since they also have ownership of each industrialTRM. The proactive involvement and cooperation with industry associ-ations is very significant for technology roadmapping to be beneficial.Subsequently, it needs motivation and incentive to establish the com-plete TRM development process.

7.3. IP analysis

The protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) has become anincreasingly important issue in multilateral trade negotiations. In themidst of technology roadmapping, the strategy of IPRs should be devel-oped simultaneously, through the participation of Korean IntellectualProperty Office (KIPO1)'s officials and experts of each sector fromKorea Institute of Patent Information (KIPI) for IP analysis. Patent infor-mation is mainly used to monitor competitors for the development of

1 KIPO is a major government body in charge of intellectual property issues in SouthKorea.

R&D planning. It analyze global and local IP trends of targeted itemswith the assistance of WC.

7.4. Policy council

The “policy council” is involved in the challenges of infrastructuresuch as regional innovation, international cooperation, standardization,and intellectual property. Specific organizationswith requisite expertiseshould participate to develop a technically credible TRM in each do-main. Strong cooperation between these organizations is required.

8. Conclusions

8.1. Lessons learned

In South Korea, the industrial technology roadmap has been popu-larized in attempts to construct each TRM at the industry level. Thispaper describes the detailed procedures of the development of industri-al TRM, retrospectively placing emphasis on the framework ofroadmapping and organizational structure of it. By this case analysis,various lessons and recommendations have been indentified, whichcan be applied to the R&D planning process of similar projects.

First, initial attempt at implementation had its limits in that thisroadmap had targeted development plans for emerging trends andtechnologies, but it did not provide any information with respect to col-laborators or sponsors who can play a major role in the development,acquisition, and operation of technology identified in TRM. Hereafter,industrial TRMhas evolved into a R&D planning tool to directly link spe-cific R&Dprograms or projects to overcome this type ofweakness. In ad-dition, implementations of TRM have evolved to produce a much morecomprehensive description aboutwhy,when, and forwhom the emerg-ing technology is necessary, and what consequential losses may followif the technology cannot be developed. Therefore, it is significant tonote that industrial TRM must serve a strategic decision making toolto allocate R&D investment.

Second, through a series of workshops and focus group discussions,roadmapping process provides a platform not only to promote potentialR&D partnerships, but also to identify new agenda to meet the currentand future industry needs like development of skilled engineers in aspecific area. In order to increase collaboration and partnership amongparticipants through knowledge sharing, each industry association has

10 Y. Cho et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

to take ownership of the technology roadmap andprovide detailed levelof coordination for all activities and roadmapping outputs.

Third, the industrial roadmappingprocess is distinctive in its deploy-ment ofDelphi, Technology Tree (TT), IP analysis, datamining, andport-folio analysis, in order to improve the effectiveness of strategic planningfor the industry that encompasses market, technology, standards, infra-structure, regional innovation, international cooperation, and regulationaspects. These tools help to identify needs driven by the current and fu-turemarkets each industry serves. Small firmswithin an industry sectorwould take advantage of this roadmap to overcome lack of resourcesneeded to forecast new or emerging technologies.

Fourth, industrial technology roadmapping is basically the same inoverall framework for all different sectors. Different roadmap templates,however, are necessary for different types of industry such as processindustry, manufacturing system industry, and material industries.Roadmapping process is not a mechanical procedure. TRM outputsshould be flexible, since technology roadmaps may vary in scope, con-tent, and level of details.

Finally, from an organizational perspective, industrial TRM has beentrying to diversify the alternative solutions proposed by adding non-technological elements aswell as alternative scenarios by policy council.Industrial TRM necessarily explores the availability of identified tech-nologies, which means where, by whom, how, and howmuch the tech-nology is used right now. It should address the scope of technologyapplications, whether it can be applied to another industry or not.

8.2. Recommendations

There are several critical factors that have to be considered for indus-trial TRM. Although developing industrial TRM in itself is significant forpolitical issues, governmental bodies should createmore concrete plansfor R&D investment. Such concrete plans help make TRM much moremeaningful to stakeholders by offering benefits to individual partici-pants' organizations. In other words, industrial TRM must address spe-cific technology development objectives and outcomes. If not, it justends up with high level of industrial description. Second, cost–benefitanalysis has to be added for plausible action plans. During technologyroadmapping, cost is easily calculated, including all the expenses to bepaid for the development, acquisition, and operation of the technology.On the other hand, it is often hard to predict the benefit, however, it canbe estimated based on the demand in themarket where the technologywould be employed. Third, to accomplish technology roadmapping suc-cessfully, governmental bodies should fill the gaps identified in theroadmapping process. Government participantsmust play a role of pro-moter or catalyst by active involvement in a committee. Fourth, to pro-mote the development of TRM in industry circle, government's supportfor industrial partnerships, R&D, and education should be followed up.Moreover, government has to maintain transparency and objectivityin constructing TRM. Finally, government should support theroadmapping process with sufficient funds, and allocate enough timebetween 12 and 15 months to effectively develop industrial TRM.

Industrial TRM requires valuable inputs from a variety of groups. Asit is recommended that technology roadmapping must be substantiallyled by an industry (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001), the industry should leadthe roadmapping processwith around 50% participation of experts fromthe industry in a committee. Finally, it would be more efficient for in-dustry associations to develop their own technology roadmapping pro-cess. It is clear that there is much learned about the structure anddevelopment of TRM. Nonetheless, we have obtained a rich store ofexperience-backed best practices regarding the framework of industrialTRM by observing from the Korean case studies for over a decade.

References

Abe, H., Shinokura, K., Suzuki, A., Kubo, H., Sakuma, H., 2006. 2nd generation businessmodeling: smart innovation planning method managing the link to corporate value

creation for R&D outputs. Technology Management for the Global Future — PICMET2006 Conference. 1, pp. 66–73 (no. c).

Abe, H., Suzuki, A., Etoh, M., Sibagaki, S., Koike, S., 2008. Towards systematic innovationmethods: innovation support technology that integrates business modeling,roadmapping and innovation architectuere. PICMET Portl. Int. Cent. Manag. Eng.Technol. Proc., pp. 2141–2149 no. c

Abe, H., Ashiki, T., Suzuki, A., Jinno, F., Sakuma, H., 2009. Integrating business modelingand roadmapping methods — the Innovation Support Technology (IST) approach.Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76, 80–90 (Jan.).

Albright, R.E., Kappel, T.A., 2003. Technology roadmapping: roadmapping the corporation.Res. Technol. Manag. 31.

An, Y., Lee, S., Park, Y., 2008. Development of an integrated product-service roadmap withQFD: a case study onmobile communications. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 19 (5), 621–638.

Anderson, T., Hollingsworth, K., Inman, O.L., 2001. Assessing the rate of change in the en-terprise database system market over time using DEA. PICMET '01 Portl. Int. Conf.Manag. Eng. Technol. Proc. 1 B, pp. 384–390 (Summ. IEEE Cat. No.01CH37199).

Arden, W., 2003. Roadmap key challenges. Mater. Today 40–44 (no. May).Ayres, R., 1969. Technological Forecasting and Long-Range Planning. McGraw-Hill, Inc.,

New York.Baldi, L., 1996. Industry roadmaps: the challenge of complexity. Microelectron. Eng. 34

(1), 9–26 (Dec.).Barker, D., Smith, D.J.H., 1995. Technology foresight using roadmaps. Long Range Plan. 28

(2), 21–28 (Apr.).Beat, R.M., 2000. Competing effectively : environmental scanning, competitive strategy, and

organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 38 (1),27.

Bitran, G., Gurumurthi, S., 2004. Roadmap for Service Excellence. MIT Sloan School ofManagement.

Bradfield, R.,Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., Van Der Heijden, K., 2005. The origins and evo-lution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures 37 (8),795–812 (Oct.).

Bray, O.H., Garcia, M.L., 1997. Technology roadmapping: the integration of strategic andtechnology planning for competitiveness. Innovation in Technology Management.The Key to Global Leadership. PICMET ‘97. IEEE, pp. 25–28.

Bright, J.R., 1968. Technological Forecasting For Industry and Government: Methods andApplications. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Brown, R., O'Hare, S., 2001. The use of technology roadmapping as an enabler of knowledgemanagement. IEE Seminar Managing Knowledge for Competitive Advantage, pp. 1–7.

Callon, M., 1986. Pinpointing Industrial Invention: an Exploration Of QuantitativeMethods For The Analysis Of Patents: InMapping The Dynamics Of Science And Tech-nology. Macmillan Press Ltd., London.

Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W.A., 1979. PROXAN: a Visual Display Technique for Scien-tific and Technical Problem Networks. Second Workshop on the Measurement of R&DOutput, Paris, France.

Canada Industry, 2000. Technology Roadmapping: a Guide for Government Employees.Cho, Y., 2013. Investigating the merge of exploratory and normative technology forecast-

ing methods. PICMET '13: Technology Management for Emerging Technologies,pp. 2083–2092.

Coates, V., Farooque, M., Klavans, R., Lapid, K., Linstone, H.A., Pistorius, C., Porter, A.L.,2001. On the future of technological forecasting. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 67(1), 1–17.

Cosner, R.R., Hynds, E.J., Fusfeld, A.R., Loweth, C.V., Scouten, C., Albright, R., 2007. Integrat-ing roadmapping into technical planning. Res. Technol. Manag. 50 (6), 31–48.

Cowan, K.R., Daim, T.U., 2012. Integrated technology roadmap development process: cre-ating smart grid roadmaps to meet regional technology planning needs in Oregonand the Pacific Northwest. Picmet '12: Proceedings — Technology Management forEmerging Technologies, pp. 2871–2885.

Cunningham, S.W., Porter, A.L., Newman, N.C., 2006. Special issue on tech mining.Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 73 (8), 915–922 (Oct.).

Daim, T., Rueda, G., Martin, H., Gerdsri, P., 2006. Forecasting emerging technologies: use ofbibliometrics and patent analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 73 (8), 981–1012(Oct.).

Damrongchai, N., Satangput, P., Tegart, G., Sripaipan, C., 2010. Future technology analysisfor biosecurity and emerging infectious diseases in Asia-Pacific. Sci. Public Policy 37(1), 41–50.

de S. Price, D.J., 1965. Networks of scientific papers. Science 149 (3683), 510–515 (80-.).Dereli, T., Durmusoglu, A., 2009a. A trend-based patent alert system for technologywatch.

J. Sci. Ind. Res. (India) 68, 674–679.Dereli, T., Durmusoglu, A., 2009b. Classifying technology patents to identify trends: apply-

ing a fuzzy-based clustering approach in the Turkish textile industry. Technol. Soc. 31(3), 263–272 (Aug.).

Dissel, M.C., Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Probert, D.R., 2006. Value roadmapping: a structuredapproach for early stage technology investment decisions. Technology Managementfor the Global Future – PICMET 2006 Conference, pp. 1488–1495 (no. c).

Dixon, B., 2001. Guidance for environmental management science and technologyroadmapping. Waste Management '01 Conference.

Donald, Hambrick C., 1981. Specialization of environmental scanning activities amongupper level executives. J. Manag. Stud. 18 (3).

Ellis, P., Hepburn, G., Oppenheim, C., 1978. Studies on patent citation networks. J. Doc. 34(1), 12–20.

Fahey, L., King, W.R., Narayanan, V.K., 1981. Environmental scanning and forecasting instrategic planning—the state of the art. Long Range Plan. 14 (1), 32.

Farrukh, C., Phaal, R., Probert, D., 2003. Technology roadmapping: linking technology re-sources into business planning. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 26 (1), 2.

Feldman, R., Dagan, I., 1995. KDT - knowledge discovery in texts. The First InternationalConference on Knowledge Discovery from Databases.

11Y. Cho et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

Fine, C.H., 2002. Roadmapping the communications value chain. Science. MIT SloanSchool of Management.

Fleury, A.L., Hunt, F., Spinola, M., Probert, D., 2006. Customizing the technologyroadmapping technique for software companies. Portl. Int. Conf. Manag. Eng. Technol.3 (c), 1528–1538.

Frawley, W.J., Piatetsky-shapiro, G., Matheus, C.J., 1991. Knowledge discovery in data-bases: an overview. Knowledge Discovery in Databases. MIT Press.

Fulmer, R.M., Rue, L.W., 1974. The practice and profitability of long-range planning.Manag. Plan. 22 (6), 1–7.

Garcia, M.L., 1997. Introduction to Technology Roadmapping: the Semiconductor IndustryAssociation's Technology Roadmapping Process.

Garcia, M.L., Bray, O.H., 1997. Fundamentals of Technology Roadmapping.Gerdsri, N., Kocaoglu, D.F., 2007. Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to build a

strategic framework for technology roadmapping. Math. Comput. Model. 46 (7–8),1071–1080 (Oct.).

Geum, Y., Lee, S., Kang, D., Park, Y., 2011. Technology roadmapping for technology-based product–service integration: a case study. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 28,128–146.

Geum, Y., Lee, S., Park, Y., 2014. Combining technology roadmap and system dynamicssimulation to support scenario-planning: a case of car-sharing service. Comput. Ind.Eng. 71, 37–49.

Gregory, R., Fischhoff, B., McDaniels, T., 2005. Acceptable input: using decision analysis toguide public policy deliberations. Decis. Anal. 2 (1), 4–16.

Groenveld, P., 1997. Roadmapping integrates business and technology. Res. Technol.Manag. 40 (5), 48–55.

Hamilton, W.F., 1997. Managing technology as a strategic asset. Technol. Manag. 14.Harmon, R.R., Laird, G.L., 2012. Roadmapping the service transition: insights for technol-

ogy organizations. PICMET '12: Proceedings— TechnologyManagement for EmergingTechnologies, pp. 3121–3130.

Harrell, S., Seidel, T., Fay, B., 1996. The national technology roadmap for semiconductorsand SEMATECH future directions. Microelectron. Eng. 30, 11–15.

Harring, R.J., 1984. Motorola's use of the product technology roadmap. The National Com-munication Forum, pp. 78–80.

Holmes, C., Ferrill, M., 2005. The application of operation and technology roadmapping toaid Singaporean SMEs identify and select emerging technologies. Technol. Forecast.Soc. Chang. 72 (3), 349–357 (Mar.).

Huss, W.R., Honton, E.J., 1987. Scenario planning — what style should you use ? LongRange Plan. 20 (4), 21–29.

Isenson, R.S., 1966. Technological forecasting in perspective. Manag. Sci. 13 (2), B70–B83.Jager-Waldau, A., 2004. R&D roadmap for PV. Thin Solid Films 451–452, 448–454 (Mar.).Jantsch, E., 1967. Technological Forecasting In Perspective: a Framework for Technological

Forecasting, its Techniques and Organization.Jeon, J., Lee, H., Park, Y., 2011. Implementing technology roadmappingwith supplier selec-

tion for semiconductor manufacturing companies. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 23 (8),899–918.

Jovane, F., Koren, Y., Boër, C.R., 2003. Present and future of flexible automation: towardsnew paradigms. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 52 (2), 543–560.

Kajikawa, Y., Yoshikawa, J., Takeda, Y., Matsushima, K., 2008. Tracking emerging technol-ogies in energy research: toward a roadmap for sustainable energy. Technol. Forecast.Soc. Chang. 75 (6), 771–782.

Kameoka, A., Nakamura, K., Fujuwara, T., Kamada, N., 2006. Services science and serviceslayer added strategic technology roadmapping. Portland International Conference onManagement of Engineering and Technology. Proceedings, pp. 9–13 (no. c).

Kappel, T.A., 2001. Perspectives on roadmaps: how organizations talk about the future.J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 18 (1), 39–50 (Jan.).

Kostoff, R., 1991. Database tomography: multidisciplinary research thrusts from co-wordanalysis. Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering andTechnology, pp. 27–31.

Kostoff, R., 1994. Database tomography: origins and duplications. Compet. Intell. Rev. 5.Kostoff, R., 2004. Disruptive technology roadmaps. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 71

(1–2), 141–159 (Feb.).Kostoff, R., Schaller, R.R., 2001. Science and technology roadmaps. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.

48 (2), 132–143 (May).Lee, J.H., Phaal, R., Lee, S.-H., 2013. An integrated service-device-technology roadmap for

smart city development. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 80 (2), 286–306.Lee, C., Song, B., Park, Y., 2015. An instrument for scenario-based technology

roadmapping: how to assess the impacts of future changes on organisational plans.Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 90, 285–301.

Lenz, R.C.J., 1962. Technological Forecasting. US Air Force, Cameron station, Alexandria,Virginia.

Linton, J.D., Walsh, S.T., 2004. Roadmapping: from sustaining to disruptive technologies.Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 71 (1–2), 1–3.

Luna-Reyes, L.F., Andersen, D.L., 2003. Collecting and analyzing qualitative data for systemdynamics: methods and models. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 19 (4), 271–296.

Lytras, Miltiadis D., Naeve, A., Pouloudi, A., 2005. A knowledge management roadmap fore-learning: the way ahead. J. Distance Educ. Technol. 3 (2), 68–75.

Ma, T., Liu, S., Nakamori, Y., 2006. Roadmapping as a way of knowledge management forsupporting scientific research in academia. c 23 (6), 743–755.

Macintosh, A., Filby, I., Tate, A., 1998. Knowledge asset road maps. Proceedings of the 2ndInternational Conference on Practical Aspects of KnowledgeManagement (PAKM98),pp. 29–30.

Martin, H., Daim, T.U., 2012. Technology roadmap development process (TRDP) for theservice sector: a conceptual framework. Technol. Soc. 34 (1), 94–105 (Feb.).

Martin, G., Eggink, E., 2008. Creation of a thermal technology roadmap in a consumerelectronics product environment. 2008 Twenty-fourth Annu. IEEE SemionductorTherm. Meas. Manag. Symp., pp. 106–111.

Martino, J.P., 1993. Techology Forecasting for Decision Making (vol.) third ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Martino, J.P., 1999. Thirty years of change and stability. Technol. Forecast. 18, 13–18.Martino, J.P., 2003. A review of selected recent advances in technological forecasting.

Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 70 (8), 719–733 (Oct.).Mccarthy, R.C., 2003. Technology roadmapping: linking technological change to business

needs. Res. Technol. Manag. 46 (2), 47–52.Millett, S.M., Honton, E.J., 1991. A Manager's Guide to Technology Forecasting and Strate-

gy Analysis Methods. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio.Oliveira, M.G., Rozenfeld, H., 2010. Integrating technology roadmapping and portfolio

management at the front-end of new product development. Technol. Forecast. Soc.Chang. 77 (8), 1339–1354.

Pagani, M., 2009. Roadmapping 3G mobile TV: strategic thinking and scenario planningthrough repeated cross-impact handling. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76 (3),382–395 (Mar.).

Payne, B., 1971. Long-range and strategic planning—its history and its future. J. Eng. Ind.93 (2), 415.

Petrick, I.J., 2002. Technology Choice and Pooled Investment Among Networks: SupplyChain Roadmaps. IEEE.

Petrick, I.J., Echols, A.E., 2004. Technology roadmapping in review: a tool for making sus-tainable new product development decisions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 71 (1–2),81–100 (Feb.).

Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., 2000. Fast-start technology roadmapping. Technol. Manag. 1–12.Phaal, R., Muller, G., 2009. An architectural framework for roadmapping: towards visual

strategy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76 (1), 39–49.Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., Probert, D., 2001. Technology roadmapping: linking technology re-

sources to business objectives. Univ. Camb. 1–18.Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., Probert, D., 2004a. Customizing roadmapping. Res. Technol. Manag.

47 (2), 26.Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., Probert, D., 2004b. Technology roadmapping—a planning framework

for evolution and revolution. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 71 (1–2), 5–26 (Feb.).Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., Probert, D., 2005. Developing a Technology Roadmapping System.

Ieee, Cambridge, UK.Phaal, R., O'Sullivan, E., Routley, M., Ford, S., Probert, D., 2011. A framework for mapping

industrial emergence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78 (2), 217–230.Porter, A.L., 1999. Tech forecasting an empirical perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

62 (1), 19–28.Porter, A.L., Detampel, M.J., 1995. Technology opportunities analysis. Technol. Forecast.

Soc. Chang. 49, 237–255.Probert, D., Radnor, M., 2003. Frontier experiences from industry-academia consortia:

corporate roadmappers create value with product and technology roadmaps. Res.Technol. Manag. 46 (2), 27.

Quinn, J.B., 1982. Managing strategies incrementally. Int. J. Manag. Sci. 10 (6), 613–627.Quist, J., Vergragt, P.J., 2003. Backcasting for industrial transformations and system inno-

vations towards sustainability : is it useful for governance ? The 2003 Berlin Confer-ence on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, pp. 1–26 (no.December)

Robertson, T.B., 1923. The Chemical Basis of Growth and Senescenc. J. B. Lippincott Com-pany, Philadelphia and London.

Robinson, J.B., 1982. Energy backcasting: a proposedmethod of policy analysis. Energ Pol-icy 10, 337–344.

Robinson, D.K.R., Propp, T., 2008. Multi-path mapping for alignment strategies in emerg-ing science and technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 75 (4), 517–538.

Routley, M., Phaal, R., Athanassopoulou, N., Probert, D.R., 2013. Mapping experience in or-ganizations: a learning process for strategic technology planning. Eng. Manag. J. 25(1), 35–47.

Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scalingmethod for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol.15, 234–281.

Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, Inc.Saritas, O., Aylen, J., 2010. Using scenarios for roadmapping: the case of clean production.

Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 77 (7), 1061–1075.Saritas, O., Oner, M.A., 2004. Systemic analysis of UK foresight results joint application of

integrated management model and roadmapping. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 71(1–2), 27–65 (Feb.).

Selen,W., 2000. Knowledge management in resource-based competitive environments: aroadmap for building learning organizations. J. Knowl. Manag. 4 (4), 346–353.

Slaughter, R.A., 1999. A new framework for environmental scanning. Foresight 1 (5),441–451.

Souder, W.E., 1972. A scoring methodology for assessing the suitability of managementscience models. Manag. Sci. 18 (10).

Strauss, J.D., Radnor, M., 2004. Roadmapping for dynamic and uncertain environments.Res. Technol. Manag. 51–58.

Strauss, J.D., Radnor, M., Peterson, J.W., 1998. Plotting and navigating a nonlinearroadmap: knowledge-based roadmapping for emerging and dynamic environments.Proceedings of the East Asian Conference on Knowledge Creation Management,Singapore.

Suh, J.H., Park, S.C., 2009. Service-oriented Technology Roadmap (SoTRM) using patentmap for R&D strategy of service industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (3), 6754–6772(PART 2).

T. F. A. M. W. Group, 2004. Technology futures analysis: toward integration of the fieldand new methods. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 71 (3), 287–303 (Mar.).

Tierney, R., Hermina, W., Walsh, S., 2013. The pharmaceutical technology landscape: anew form of technology roadmapping. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 80 (2),194–211.

Van Tuyle, G., Hill, A.D., Beller, D., Bishop, W., Cotton, T., Finck(2), P., Halsey(5), W.,Herezeg, J., Herring, J.S., Lancaster, D., March-Leuba, J., Ludewig, H., Sanders, T.,

12 Y. Cho et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 107 (2016) 1–12

Savage, B., Schweitzer, E., Smith, C., Stewart, L., Todosow, M., Walter, C., 2001. Aroadmap for developing ATW technology: system scenarios & integration. Prog.Nucl. Energy 38 (1), 3–23.

Vojak, B.A., Chambers, F.A., 2004. Roadmapping disruptive technical threats and opportu-nities in complex, technology-based subsystems: the SAILS methodology. Technol.Forecast. Soc. Chang. 71 (1–2), 121–139 (Feb.).

Walsh, S., 2004. Roadmapping a disruptive technology: a case study the emergingmicrosystems and top-down nanosystems industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.71 (1–2), 161–185 (Feb.).

Walsh, S., Boylan, R., Mcdermott, C., Paulson, a, 2005. The semiconductor silicon industryroadmap: epochs driven by the dynamics between disruptive technologies and corecompetencies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 72 (2), 213–236 (Feb.).

Willyard, C.H., McClees, C.W., 1987. Motorola's technology roadmap process. Res. Manag.13–19.

Wissema, G.J., 1976. Morphological analysis: its application to a company TF investiga-tion. Futures 146–153.

Yin, R.K., 1981. The case study crisis: some answers. Adm. Sci. Q. 26 (1), 58–65.Yin, R.K., 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. vol. 5.Yoon, B., Phaal, R., Probert, D., 2008. Morphology analysis for technology roadmapping:

application of text mining. R D Manag. 38 (1), 51–68.Zhang, W., Liu, S., Li, N., Xie, H., Li, X., 2015. Development forecast and technology

roadmap analysis of renewable energy in buildings in China. Renew. Sust. Energ.Rev. 49, 395–402.

Zhou, Y., Xu, G., Minshall, T., Su, J., 2013. A policy dimension required for technologyroadmapping: learning from the emergence of Chinese wind turbine industry. Int.J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 12 (3–21).