Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Barriers to Agile Technology Roadmapping

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Systems Engineering in Context

Abstract

This paper presents two retrospective exploratory case studies conducted in a high-tech company in the electronics industry.

The case studies aim on identifying barriers for aligning long-term planning of technology development with shorter-term product development projects. Several barriers are presented regarding technology maturity assessment and challenges related to technical and organizational complexity. Furthermore, methodology and concepts from three main domains are investigated for their potential to better describe and to remedy these barriers: technology roadmapping (long-term planning), systems theory (complexity), and product development (systems engineering). As the purpose of the paper is to establish a baseline for further research and methodology development, it ends by presenting a problem description and initial hypothesis for a research project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J., & Probert, D. R. (2004). Technology roadmapping—A planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gerring, J. (2006). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Barker, D., & Smith, D. J. (1995). Technology foresight using roadmaps. Long Range Planning, 28(2), 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Groenveld, P. (1997). Roadmapping integrates business and technology. Research-Technology Management, 40(5), 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Abe, H., Ashiki, T., Suzuki, A., Jinno, F., & Sakuma, H. (2007). Integration studies of business modeling and roadmapping methods for innovation support technology (IST) and its practical application to real-world-cases. Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Abe, H., Ashiki, T., Suzuki, A., Jinno, F., & Sakuma, H. (2009). Integrating business modeling and roadmapping methods–The Innovation Support Technology (IST) approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 80–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Larman, C., & Basili, V. R. (2003). Iterative and incremental developments: A brief history. Computer, 36(6), 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nolte, W. L. (2008). Did I ever tell you about the whale?: Or measuring technology maturity. Charlotte, NA: IAP.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mankins, J. C. (1995). Technology readiness levels. White Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Walden, D. D., Roedler, G. J., Forsberg, K. J., Douglas Hamelin, R., & Shortell, T. M. (2015). Systems engineering handbook: A guide for system life cycle processes and activities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  13. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288: 2015. (2015). Systems and software engineering-content of systems and software life cycle process information products (documentation). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  14. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory (p. 40). New York: George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grove, P. (2002). Webster’s third new international dictionary. Merriam-Webster Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson, N. (2009). Simply complexity: A clear guide to complexity theory. United Kingdom: Oneworld Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Broadway Business.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Flood, R. L. (1999). Rethinking the fifth discipline: Learning within the unknowable. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Griffin, A. (1997). The effect of project and process characteristics on product development cycle time. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 24–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bashir, H. A., & Thomson, V. (1999). Estimating design complexity. Journal of Engineering Design, 10(3), 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Meyer, M. H., & Lehnerd, A. P. (1997). The power of product platforms. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sinha, K. (2014). Structural complexity and its implications for design of cyber-physical systems. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The project was supported by Mycronic AB and instigated by the Chalmers University of Technology and the University College of South East Norway. The financial support by Vinnova (Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems) is greatly acknowledged. This work was conducted in the Vinnova Vinnex Excellence Centre for Product Realization and the Production Area of Advance at Chalmers University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden

    Lars Ivansen & Dag Bergsjö

  2. Mycronic AB, Täby, Sweden

    Lars Ivansen

  3. University College of South East Norway, Kongsberg, Norway

    Jonas Andersson & Dag Bergsjö

Authors
  1. Lars Ivansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonas Andersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dag Bergsjö
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Ivansen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Stephen Adams

  2. Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Peter A. Beling

  3. Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    James H. Lambert

  4. Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    William T. Scherer

  5. Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Cody H. Fleming

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ivansen, L., Andersson, J., Bergsjö, D. (2019). Identifying Barriers to Agile Technology Roadmapping. In: Adams, S., Beling, P., Lambert, J., Scherer, W., Fleming, C. (eds) Systems Engineering in Context. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00114-8_31

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation